The definition of "Atheism", why Agnosticism is bs.

[jf1]

LOL @ Atheists trying to group all agnostics into their camp and way of thinking. Most agnostic types I've ever met STRONGLY don't want to be considered an Athiest. Lets get real people.

Theist = belive in god.
Agnostic = maybe or maybe not a god.
Atheist = dont believe in God.

I fixed that for you.
Atheism is the opposite of theism.
Look at your own definition...and stop lying.

But they lose membership numbers under the traditionally understood meaning of the words. Can't be having that right?

I find it telling that you both are willing to argue the meaning of atheism, yet neither of you can present a compelling argument supporting Christianity.

[Birdy69]

LOL @ Atheists trying to group all agnostics into their camp and way of thinking. Most agnostic types I've ever met STRONGLY don't want to be considered an Athiest. Lets get real people.

Theist = belive in god.
Agnostic = maybe or maybe not a god.
Atheist = there is no god.

That would mean Richard Dawkins is agnostic.

Your definitions are wrong and so are those of the 'agnostics' you've met.

[209vaughn]

That would mean Richard Dawkins is agnostic.

[jtaylor2010]

The reason so many people view Atheists as people who "know" there is no God is because of the way the most vocal Atheists argue their points. You can't have people bashing everyone who would even entertain the idea of something as implausible as a God(in their minds) then say" well, I don't know for sure".

You may not like the way the terminology is used, but it's a monster that Atheism created itself.

[lasher]

I find it telling that you both are willing to argue the meaning of atheism, yet neither of you can present a compelling argument supporting Christianity.

Of course you find it telling. But let's try sticking to the actual thread topic.

[ImproperOne]

LOL @ Atheists trying to group all agnostics into their camp and way of thinking. Most agnostic types I've ever met STRONGLY don't want to be considered an Athiest. Lets get real people.

Theist = belive in god.
Agnostic = maybe or maybe not a god.
Atheist = there is no god.

Atheist=Doesn't believe in god/gods.

Do you believe in god, if the answer is yes, you're a theist, if your answer is no, you're an atheist.

Do you claim to know whether there is a god? If the answer is yes, you are gnostic, if your answer is no you are agnostic.

This is what the actual words mean. It's not a sliding scale where in the middle you are so confused that you don't know if you believe in god/gods or not.

[ImproperOne]

He's correct, you know.

Dawkins slogan is "There probably is no god" which doesn't assert that there isn't any god.

According to your own definitions, Dawkins is an agnostic. (which is true, he is an agnostic atheist)

[209vaughn]

Do you believe in god, if the answer is yes, you're a theist, if your answer is no, you're an atheist.

100%. This is how people define themselves. Only a tiny minority of people try to define their own terms as to who's "agnostic" or whos "gnostic". Pointless exercise you go through, you either believe, dont believe or not sure if you believe.

Do you claim to know whether there is a god? If the answer is yes, you are gnostic, if your answer is no you are agnostic.

This is mostly hyperbole and nobody really uses these terms (agnostic *** or gnostic ***) to describe themselves. Only people trying to argue on a message board that agnostics are actually atheists.

inb4 But but but Webster's says so!! Nobody but fringe Atheists on a message board use these terms in this manner. You either believe, dont believe or not sure if you believe. Bottom line. I would love to see a more parsimonious way of looking at it.

[jf1]

Of course you find it telling. But let's try sticking to the actual thread topic.

Are you hiding in here?

[tuk22]

He's correct, you know.

Dawkins slogan is "There probably is no god" which doesn't assert that there isn't any god.

According to your own definitions, Dawkins is an agnostic. (which is true, he is an agnostic atheist)

Probability is knowledge. When Dawkins claims that the probability that there is no God is very low he is telling us he knows there is no God, but that he isn't 100%certain... Very similar to the nature of science being probable knowledge...

The whole absurdity of it is people identify and label themselves by what they believe, not what they don't... Only atheism is different... Why?

[lasher]

Are you hiding in here?

Hiding from what, you? lol.

[209vaughn]

He's correct, you know.

Dawkins slogan is "There probably is no god" which doesn't assert that there isn't any god.

According to your own definitions, Dawkins is an agnostic. (which is true, he is an agnostic atheist)

That's hyberbole. People either believe, dont believe, or not sure if they believe. Its only people on a message board who want to make it less parsimonious like you. But in real life, nobody uses the terms this way.

It doesn't matter if you assert the belief or not. What matters is what your belief is, thats all. Adding the terms 'gnostic' or 'agnostic' is pointless exercise that is less parsimonious.

You can feel free to go through this exercise on a message board, which i've noticed Atheists love to do, but in actuallity, nobody uses these terms like that.

[ImproperOne]

100%. This is how people define themselves. Only a tiny minority of people try to define their own terms as to who's "agnostic" or whos "gnostic". Pointless exercise you go through, you either believe, dont believe or not sure if you believe.



This is mostly hyperbole and nobody really uses these terms (agnostic *** or gnostic ***) to describe themselves. Only people trying to argue on a message board that agnostics are actually atheists.

inb4 But but but Webster's says so!! Nobody but fringe Atheists on a message board use these terms in this manner. You either believe, dont believe or not sure if you believe. Bottom line. I would love to see a more parsimonious way of looking at it.

Most atheists don't say they are agnostic atheists, that is kind of a given for sane people, just like most theists don't say they are agnostic theists (if they weren't they wouldn't need faith).

But the meanings of the words we use remain, especially when we are using latin words that have a distinct meaning.

[209vaughn]

Most atheists don't say they are agnostic atheists, that is kind of a given for sane people, just like most theists don't say they are agnostic theists (if they weren't they wouldn't need faith).

But the meanings of the words we use remain, especially when we are using latin words that have a distinct meaning.

I hear what you're saying. OP is trying to lump some who who approachs the God topic from a "I'm not sure" perspective and abitrarly label them an Atheist. Seems absurd to me... But the mental exercises some people have to go through to build up their arguments is amazing.

[ImproperOne]

Probability is knowledge. When Dawkins claims that the probability that there is no God is very low he is telling us he knows there is no God, but that he isn't 100%certain... Very similar to the nature of science being probable knowledge...

No, what he's telling you is exactly that he is saying, that he doesn't know but doesn't believe there is a god. I don't know how to make it any clearer than that.

The whole absurdity of it is people identify and label themselves by what they believe, not what they don't... Only atheism is different... Why?

That's a good question, in reality an atheist just isn't a theist, it says nothing more than that so...

[ImproperOne]

I hear what you're saying. OP is trying to lump some who who approachs the God topic from a "I'm not sure" perspective and abitrarly label them an Atheist. Seems absurd to me... But the mental exercises some people have to go through to build up their arguments is amazing.

Well, i agree that if you are not sure either way, you are an agnostic and most people are but most of those people are also either theists or atheists in that they either believe that there is a god but not sure that there is (they have faith there is) or that they are not sure but they don't believe in a god (they don't reject the claim because while there is no evidence for a god the claim of god cannot be investigated and therefore not discarded either).

[PaulG]

Putting Agnostic before any word with a subjective opinion is an oxymoron, since Agnostic literally means to have no knowledge of, and to hold no position of either side, no opinion, and that it is unknowable.

If you have a strong opinion that either is or is not, related to deities, you have an opinion. Agnostics have no opinion period.

Like I said before in the other thread, this spread of disinformation that started on Reddit just discredits atheists in general, makes all of them look stupid sheep following a baseless trend. **** like that gets you killed in the middle east.

[tuk22]

No, what he's telling you is exactly that he is saying, that he doesn't know but doesn't believe there is a god. I don't know how to make it any clearer than that...

No, that isn't what he is saying...

The Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit is a counter-argument to the modern form of the argument from design. It was introduced by Richard Dawkins in chapter 4 "Why there almost certainly is no God"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Boeing_747_gambit

Probability is a way of expressing not just belief, but knowledge... That IS science... Probable knowledge...

If it is true that 'there almost certainly is no God' then we KNOW God does not exist...

[anotheruser]

in4retarded argument about semantics that's been done a billion times.

[hooked4life]

'


http://oxforddictionaries.com/defini...eist?q=atheist

atheist

Pronunciation: /ˈeɪθɪɪst/
noun

a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods: he is a committed atheist




You can go ahead and say your personal definition of atheism is whatever you want though OP.

this is the same as the OP. It doesn't say "believes there is no god/s" it says "not believes there are" - big difference and it's the same as the OP.

It's also the same view that any atheist I know holds. But go ahead, think otherwise, I know it's important to you so you can caste Atheists as "having more faith" or whatever.

[ImproperOne]

Putting Agnostic before any word with a subjective opinion is an oxymoron, since Agnostic literally means to have no knowledge of, and to hold no position of either side, no opinion, and that it is unknowable.

If you have a strong opinion that either is or is not, related to deities, you have an opinion. Agnostics have no opinion period.

Like I said before in the other thread, this spread of disinformation that started on Reddit just discredits atheists in general, makes all of them look stupid sheep following a baseless trend. **** like that gets you killed in the middle east.

Not really, a-gnostic a-theist simply means "i don't know and i don't believe in god/gods".

Knowledge and belief are two separate things (which is why faith is required for theism), agnostic (derived from Greek (gnosis)) literally means "no knowledge about higher things".

[SheHadMANHands]

[chalup]

Not really, a-gnostic a-theist simply means "i don't know and i don't believe in god/gods".

Knowledge and belief are two separate things (which is why faith is required for theism), agnostic (derived from Greek (gnosis)) literally means "no knowledge about higher things".

This whole topic is fukkin retarded. The word agnostic is around for a reason. The world atheist is around for a reason. The word theist is around for a reason. Its pretty clear cut and so are the meanings. Trying to lump agnosticism into atheism makes absolutely no sense. I dont even get why atheist feel compelled to argue this. If you feel you have no evidence and will never have evidence to prove either way you are agnostic.

[DanNZ]

This whole topic is fukkin retarded. The word agnostic is around for a reason. The world atheist is around for a reason. The word theist is around for a reason. Its pretty clear cut and so are the meanings. Trying to lump agnosticism into atheism makes absolutely no sense. I dont even get why atheist feel compelled to argue this. If you feel you have no evidence and will never have evidence to prove either way you are agnostic.

No, I think you're missing the point. An atheist doesn't hold a positive belief that there is no god, only lacks a positive belief that there is one.

What would be nice is if we had another word that describes someone who believes there is no god.

Basically the thing here, is you have almost every atheist, that identifies himself as one, and argues as one (Richard Dawkins for example), that don't believe that there is a god, probably think there isn't one but realize they will never be able to prove either way for sure. They debate the position of what most people associate as atheism, in believing that there is no god, as it makes the debate a lot clearer, but that doesn't mean they hold such a strong belief against a god.

The problem comes from Agnostics, who are the same as atheists that simply don't believe in a god, yet they try to distance themselves from being an atheist since they don't want to be associated with them. Thing is, they are atheists, just not as vocal about it as some.

You basically have a group of people who don't believe in a god, and part of that group is more outspoken (like most groups). However, another part of the group doesn't want to be associated with more outspoken people, so try to claim that they're from another group. This splitting up probably harms atheism to be honest.

TL;DR:

- Agnostics and Atheists have exactly the same stance for the most part: a lack of belief in a god
- Agnostics don't want to be associated with more outspoken Atheists, so claim agnosticism to avoid this
- Regardless of what they want to label themselves as, they are still Atheists by definition.

Just because somebody doesn't want to be associated with people because of the bad things humans do, doesn't mean that he isn't actually a human.

[ImproperOne]

This whole topic is fukkin retarded. The word agnostic is around for a reason. The world atheist is around for a reason. The word theist is around for a reason. Its pretty clear cut and so are the meanings. Trying to lump agnosticism into atheism makes absolutely no sense. I dont even get why atheist feel compelled to argue this. If you feel you have no evidence and will never have evidence to prove either way you are agnostic.

I absolutely agree that there are two words one derived from greek and one from latin and both have a distinct meaning based on the language, a meaning which cannot be changed no matter how much you want to redefine the terms.

It's been explained thoughout this thread, obviously you can never understand it and i expected that from you as i alway expect the likes of you to be utterly ignorant idiots set in the ways of a six year old going "nuh-uh" when they are proven wrong.

I agree that it's clear cut one refers to knowledge and the other to belief, you can't lump them together and if anything i lumped agnosticism with theism since it's required to be an agnostic theist to have faith, if you have knowledge you'd need no faith.

I am going to go right ahead and just state that you don't have faith though, you are a gnostic theist and just like a gnostic atheist you are a complete idiot.

How did i know? Knuckle draggers are all gnostics.

[ImproperOne]

No, I think you're missing the point. An atheist doesn't hold a positive belief that there is no god, only lacks a positive belief that there is one.

What would be nice is if we had another word that describes someone who believes there is no god.

We do, they are known as gnostic atheists.

People who don't believe in a god because they have knowledge that one does not exist.

These terms do fit beautifully together, one is based on knowledge, the other on belief and no matter what anyone says, you either believe or you don't, if you don't know if you believe, you don't believe.

Theism is a positive term, atheism is a negative, no one is unsure if they believe in a god or not.

Chalup is unsure about everything, he was an atheist in another thread, agnostic and now apparently he is a theist.

My best guess is that he's just a dishonest theist who used terms that do not apply to him to gain credibility in other threads.

That's kind of pathetic.

[tuk22]

There is an inherent lack of common decency with the atheist definition: without belief in God. People either have theistic metaphysics, non-theistic metaphysics (that imply that we live in a world absent of God) or don't have any specific metaphysic...

Even if I did have a non-theistic metaphysic the last thing I would do is shift burden of proof in a debate to a Theist. Like the poster asking for compelling evidence for Christianity knowing full well it is faith-based with the caveat that only logical proof or material evidence is required...

If Atheism is only a lack of a positive belief in God, we have some atheists who want to 'label' and 'group' people without any meaning... Only positive beliefs have meaning...

I can understand why agnostics do not want any part of this...

How many atheists here when asked: Do you think we live in a world where God exists.... answer... Maybe? I'm willing to bet most of them would say... 'probably not'...

Again, probability is knowledge... Probable statements, if accepted, are 'positive' beliefs...

So if some of you insist using a weak meaningless definition of atheism, at least try to be consistent...

Thanks!

[209vaughn]

The problem comes from Agnostics, who are the same as atheists that simply don't believe in a god, yet they try to distance themselves from being an atheist since they don't want to be associated with them. Thing is, they are atheists, just not as vocal about it as some.

So if you cant win over hearts and minds, just redefine the terms and include a whole group of people into your ideology without them knowing. Problem solve.

BRB all agnostics are now atheists b/c we make up our own terms. This doesn't work in the real world - no true agnostic will convert to Atheism b/c you want to rewrite the the meaning of words. Atheism is a certain world view just like Theism. Agnostisism doesn't carry the required ideology to be Atheists.

Whats next, Theists are actually Atheists too?

[209vaughn]

There is an inherent lack of common decency with the atheist definition: without belief in God. People either have theistic metaphysics, non-theistic metaphysics (that imply that we live in a world absent of God) or don't have any specific metaphysic...

Even if I did have a non-theistic metaphysic the last thing I would do is shift burden of proof in a debate to a Theist. Like the poster asking for compelling evidence for Christianity knowing full well it is faith-based with the caveat that only logical proof or material evidence is required...

If Atheism is only a lack of a positive belief in God, we have some atheists who want to 'label' and 'group' people without any meaning... Only positive beliefs have meaning...

I can understand why agnostics do not want any part of this...

How many atheists here when asked: Do you think we live in a world where God exists.... answer... Maybe? I'm willing to bet most of them would say... 'probably not'...

Again, probability is knowledge... Probable statements, if accepted, are 'positive' beliefs...

So if some of you insist using a weak meaningless definition of atheism, at least try to be consistent...

Thanks!

I've said this a billion of times in the R/P. inb4 ATHEISMS NOT A BELIEF!!!!

[Queequeg]

This thread is way i use the term non-theist now, because some thiests are just to ****ing stupid to understand that rejecting a belief dosn't necessiate the holding of the opposite belief.

Example: If I reject the belief in Russels teapot, it don't mean I defecto believe there is no Russels teapot, I just simply reject the positive belief that there is.