Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why I sort of go between self identifying as agnostic and atheist.

Since you bring up that distinction, I consider myself both: An agnostice because I don't believe there can be any proof one way or another, so nobody truly KNOWS the answer, and an atheist because I personally believe there is no God in the sense of most western religions.

Are you also a Tooth Fairy agnostic?

No way! I got verifiable coins for my teeth. I'm not sure how she got into my bedroom, but you can't argue with solid data.

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why I sort of go between self identifying as agnostic and atheist.

Since you bring up that distinction, I consider myself both: An agnostice because I don't believe there can be any proof one way or another, so nobody truly KNOWS the answer, and an atheist because I personally believe there is no God in the sense of most western religions.

Are you also a Tooth Fairy agnostic?

If you check out the rest of nyad's comments, you'll see that she believes in "spirituality" too -- which most atheists eschew.

I do think Oprah is off-base, though telling another person what they believe.

I also think people in general are confused right now, perhaps because various religious beliefs (or lack thereof) haven't been discussed so openly or in such depth before. THe fact that they are being talked about is overall a good thing, I think, and the definitions will sort themselves out in the process.

Anonymous wrote:This is why I sort of go between self identifying as agnostic and atheist.

Since you bring up that distinction, I consider myself both: An agnostic because I don't believe there can be any proof one way or another, so nobody truly KNOWS the answer, and an atheist because I personally believe there is no God in the sense of most western religions.

Can't stand Okra!

This is why I sort of go between self identifying as agnostic and atheist.

As an atheist, I'm perfectly happy with Oprah's comment. To me it means that she's basically in agreement with me that "God" is just a word for the feelings of awe we have with the universe, our love for our fellow beings, and our belief in the golden rule. I do not begrudge her right to focus those feelings by calling it God; in fact, I do it myself sometimes -- just sneeze near me and you'll elicit my reflex loyalty to God.

I don't think there ought to be a dispute over belief or terminology among those who are willing to accept others' right to believe different things. It's those who are so adamant in their beliefs, either in the existence of God and the way He should be worshipped, or those who campaign to eradicate that belief, that I disagree with.

In sum, Diana Nyad, an atheist, described still having a feeling of "awe" in life despite not believing in any gods. Winfrey responded that if Nyad believes in "the awe and the mystery and the wonder," that's what god is.

I think spinning this as some kind of "great insult" is absurd, but as another atheist, I agree with Nyad - that if god is awe, mystery, and wonder, then everything is god - and it's all kind of a fluffy god, without the religion and rules. I don't believe in any creator or overseer, but I too find immense beauty and emotional amazement at something in the natural world, or human creation.

What do you guys think?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/wp/2013/10/17/what-oprah-doesnt-get-about-atheists/