They have a right to believe or not to believe, I just wish they would not try to force their views on other people, including taking their cases to the Supreme Court.   That's as bad as extreme Islam or extreme Christianity.   I have known several atheists and I understand that some of them need to see something, need evidence, and do not have the personalities to go by faith.  That makes sense.  I also think being religious or not religious has a great deal to do with one's personality.   I was raised a Christian, but the religion never felt "right" to me and when I became an adult, I converted to Wicca.  We are lucky that we live in a country that allows us to practice our religions without being burned at the stake.   However, there are some rabid atheists who used to practice a religion, and became angry with their God and now the entire world is going to pay for their anger.  Wrong, people, wrong.  Live and let live. 

They have a right to believe or not to believe, I just wish they would not try to force their views on other people, including taking their cases to the Supreme Court. 
-------------------------
<sarcasm>
Yea, why can't those darn uppity atheists keep their heads down and stay quiet unless spoken to.  We don't need these upstart atheists trying to require us good christians to obey things like the law.  Heck, we wrote the laws, we know that christians are chosen and the atheists are scum.
 
Just stay quiet and accept that you have no rights unless given to you by us good christians.
</sarcasm>
 
Just more of the same privileged b.s. from the self-righteous.

Physicsisphun has a point.  "Live and let live" is a terrific motto, but it's precisely because the religious right doesn't want to "let live" that we uppity atheists must go to courts to protect our rights.  Can you imagine the uproar by xtians if a Muslim group tried to institute prayer to Allah in the public schools?  If Hindus tried to have the Hindu creation myth taught in schools (and to the exclusion of both evolution and the xtian creation myth)?  If local govt's featured large, prominent menorah displays around Hannukah while completely ignoring xmas?  Many xtians who berate atheists for being active and standing up for their rights have quite the double standard when it comes to freedom of belief.

I get what all three of you are saying - there are some pretty rabid atheist who are as Fundie as Christians and/or other religious groups - now with that said - I think each legal action should be considered individually - is there clear violation of one's rights - another words - say a group of teens wants to meet during lunch to pray and it is not forced upon anyone nor endorsed by the school - the kids do it on their own - does anyone have the right to tell them no - only if they interrupt others or impose their religion on others - but if they are just getting together (as any other group like the jocks or the goths) and praying and not bothering anyone else then no one's rights are being violated - imposing something on someone involves forcing them to participate or trying to force them to belief something they don't , etc.  Praying in public is not forcing anything on anyone in this situation.  You have the ability to walk away and not hear or see them if they offend your sensibilities. 

 

Now on the other hand - religion should not be taught in science, history or any other class that involves proven things or scientific theories, etc.  It is not science, it is not history and it is not the sole basis for civilization, laws and so forth.  And it is misleading and does infringe on the rights of others who are forced to endure lectures, take tests and recite the information as it was true education material oppose to religious beliefs.  So if someone wants to ensure this does not take place by having it in black and white - legally, more power to them. 

Agnosticism -- is it the same or different than atheism

Agnosticism -- is it the same or different than atheism
--------------------
Different.  It has to do whether you are taking an epistemological position or an ontological position or both.
 
An agnostic can take the epistemological position that knowing whether a diety exists or not is not possible.  But the key is that they KNOW.  That is an epistemological position. 
 
The atheist takes an ontological position that there does not exist a deity.  Knowing this is not part of the discussion, the discussion is focused on only the existence or not, not the human's capacity for knowledge of the existence.
 
The two are very different philosophically.

Agnosticism can be considered a type of atheism.  There are two types of atheists, "weak" atheists and "strong" atheists.  Weak & strong are just descriptive terms, not any kind of value judgment.  A weak atheist is someone who simply lacks belief in a god.  Babies are weak atheists.  A tribesman who's never heard of xtianity would be a weak atheist with respect to the xtian god, though he may believe in some of his tribe's gods.  Strong atheists, on the other hand, make the positive assertion that there are no gods.  They don't merely lack belief in gods, they have come to the conclusion that gods do not exist.

Agnostics are therefore, by default, weak atheists. They do not positively assert that there are no gods, but at the same time they also do not positively believe in gods.

An aside to physicsisphun, there are epistemological atheists as well--those who take the position that it is possible to know and prove the existence or non-existence of a god based on objective characteristics that god should exhibit.  See, for example, Victor Stenger's "God: The Failed Hypothesis."

An aside to physicsisphun, there are epistemological atheists as well--those who take the position that it is possible to know and prove the existence or non-existence of a god based on objective characteristics that god should exhibit.
-------------------
True, I did not mean to say that agnostics were only concerned with epistemology and that atheists were only concerned with ontology.
 
There are 4 different combinations of the questions posed with ontology and epistemology, and the combinations of those are what gives us the strong and weak agnostic and strong or weak atheist positions.
 
Thank you for the correction.

Different - agnostics belief in a higher being or they don't discount a God entirely while an atheist says there is no God period.  Agnostics typically are the people who say, is there a God - I don't know - there could be one - I just don't know that he is a Christian God, etc.  Where an atheist just does not believe in God period.

"They have a right to believe or not to believe, I just wish they would not try to force their views on other people, including taking their cases to the Supreme Court.   That's as bad as extreme Islam or extreme Christianity.   I have known several atheists and I understand that some of them need to see something, need evidence, and do not have the personalities to go by faith.  That makes sense.  I also think being religious or not religious has a great deal to do with one's personality.   I was raised a Christian, but the religion never felt "right" to me and when I became an adult, I converted to Wicca.  We are lucky that we live in a country that allows us to practice our religions without being burned at the stake.   However, there are some rabid atheists who used to practice a religion, and became angry with their God and now the entire world is going to pay for their anger.  Wrong, people, wrong.  Live and let live."                 

Somewhat of a hypocritical statement. I have always seen it the other way around with the bible beaters trying to force their beliefs on everybody else. How many times I have had trouble turning them away nicely when they come up to my front door trying to invoke their views on me? I've never seen Atheists doing that.  Yes, I DO need to see some proof of any deity and not take it upon faith in religions that were started by ancients who were barely above worshipping the sun, moon, wind and rain with the lack of understanding science and needed to explain everything with the presence of a god. Remember, everybody who believes in god has been brainwashed from childhood into believing such nonsense and it's because of the sanctimonious churches with their gift of public relations why it is still around, along with weak minded individuals who have to have absolution in knowing that their pitiful existence will continue in an "afterlife".

By the way, what kind of god inflicts children with starvation and disease? Where is god to be found with my neighbor's 6 year old child suffering from Leukemia? 

 

Remember, everybody who believes in god has been brainwashed from childhood into believing such nonsense and it's because of the sanctimonious churches with their gift of public relations why it is still around, along with weak minded individuals who have to have absolution in knowing that their pitiful existence will continue in an "afterlife".

-----------------

I started to add something to your post but had to give up.. You nailed it!...  

Atheists are fine - belief or unbelief or doubt or knowledge where's the problem - no atheist has ever tried to blow me up for not being an atheist - and I'm not an atheist but I'm not a monotheist or a polytheist either, people can worship bling and for all I care - I'm convinced people are not really there anyway so what's the harm ? http://designerlabels.blogspot.com

There is a difference between atheists and agnostics. Also agnosticism can NOT be considered as the type of atheism. They are different things. If we approach the problem from the fuzzy logic, it will be much more difficult to define if the certain person is atheist or agnostic (and even theist). There are people who consider themselves atheists, but believe that the world created by God (but they do accept religious approach). So, in my opinion the questions: who is agnostic or atheist - will never find answer. For example, Einstein is considered atheist, but he believed in God which creates new type atheists.

im not really responding i just wanted to post related to this topic and the poor design of this site doesn't allow for just posting. also when you cut and paste a word it doesnt allow me to control the font and that spot in the text will not let go of its forced styling. really this is web basics 101 guys.

well in don't really think defending the right to state or federal support of religion is the definition of "freedom of religion". the freedom implied is the freedom to hold you own celebrations, not buy a baby jesus or santa clause with my money. thats right, MY MONEY. or a bible, or church, or any thing else to prop up your beliefs. taking it out of gov will not effect your ability to purchase what you want for whatever religion you support. it just means i don't have to pay to prop up your beliefs. and that religion should be left out of the voting. im talking to you bush supporters out there. you elected a man that snorted cocaine while conddeming a man for  adultery . why? because he said GOD BLESS AMERICA in every speech. Life is so much more sacred once you realize, this is the only one you or any of us get. add god to the mix and war is ok because we all just move on to some air conditioned condo in the sky.

 Life is so much more sacred once you realize, this is the only one you or any of us get. add god to the mix and war is ok because we all just move on to some air conditioned condo in the sky.

----------------

You should come over to the other side, ie, http://forums.abcnews.go.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?nav=messages&folderId=1&listMode=13&webtag=ABCUS