The real debate about how a person is lies with how they hang toilet paper. XP

Just kidding, people seriously need to chill. I’ve known so many “flex atheists” who are “agnostic” in public because of the connotation of atheist.

Even on the scale you can have gnostic and agnostic religious and unreligious people... I’m faiiiirly sure the site even defines the words to stave off this in-fighting.

Personally, fully agree the Ibrahamic god is fake as shit, some cultures deify natural things. Shintoism worships some trees that they believe house spirits. Do I -not- believe in trees? No, they’re there. Do I deify them? No, no I do not. My ‘doubt’ is in the interpretation. Though, at the same time that concept that you can deify yourself with enough people buying into your ego is pretty damn niche cool.

^_~ Live and let live, do no harm and take no shit!

xoxo

It is very simple:

Q1 "Does a god exist?"
A1 "I don't know, I'm agnostic."
Q2 "Do you believe that a god exists?"
A2 "No, I'm an atheist."

No sane atheist would claim to be able to prove the non-existence of a god, hence any sane atheist is also agnostic.

I can identify. Maybe I am an agnostic atheist. I was once a believer in the Abrahamic god but have come to realize that there is no proof of any gods and various holy books are only the writings of those who believe. The books are written by men and not supreme beings. What is a god? Having a god who is greatly concerned about my sex life is disturbing. Make this god all powerful and yet have him unable to do things is more disturbing yet. It gets much worse when I discover how the holy books were assembled and how long it took to get them in our present forms today. Belief in gods of any sort is much worse than science fiction.

This was well thought-out, and well written, thank you for sharing your thoughts and the result of your searching and cogitating! Agnostic and atheist are similar terms, but, yes, they define different perspectives. I call myself an atheist because I strongly believe that there is no god (or are no gods), and that works for me.

I've also traveled that agnostic/atheist trail, and have come this conclusion: I am a post Big Bang atheist, and a pre Big Bang agnostic. I know - we shouldn't think in terms of 'before the Big Bang since time started then, but that is my stand. We pretty well have it nailed that the universe started at the BB, but those first few microseconds after the start is still a mystery. 'Before' the BB is so out there I can't even speculate

As others have pointed out, gnostic relates to a claim of knowledge while theism relates to having belief. They are two separate points that can be mixed and matched either way.

A gnostic theist claims knowledge of and belief in a god. An agnostic theist believes, but claims no knowledge of. A gnostic atheist doesn't believe, and claims to know about god's existence. An agnostic atheist doesn't believe, but claims no knowledge to the existence of a god.

can anyone claim to have read this post, from start to finish ? rule one, keep your comment as brief and to the point as possible, even if you have a million points !

I'm glad to think I'm part of your unique crowd @silvereyes,
Hey, let's build a tree house!

Interesting but at the end of the day an agnostic cannot call themselves a theist so I kinda think the point is moot. For some of us who go so far as saying we are anti-theist, we are angry that the Lords prayer is said at beginning of parliament, swearing on bible in court and religious instruction in schools. I find religion divisive and feel the world would be a better, kinder place without it so I will proudly shout ATHEIST.

Nice rant Silvereyes. With you all the way! Make sure you put the soapbox away safely. I'm looking forward to the next one

I completely agree. Aren't we all united in our doubt?

Darling, I agree with you 100%. I'm personally agnostic. I can't say there's something there or not. I, personally, almost had my heart fail while having a csection and something stopped it before the paddles were brought in. There was no medical intervention. I can't say what happened, but I'm not going to full on dive into religion that is a giant hypocrisy. The only thing I have ever disliked about the atheist community has been the belittling and shaming of those who do believe. Especially if that person has been polite enough to not impose their views. I hate it when Christians do it too, but I've met more than my share of atheists that have been giant dicks about it.

I like the Dawkins approach of an agnostic scale of 1-7 (on which he variaby professes to be a 6 or 6.9). I like this because it incorporates the unfalsifiability of theism, and encourages the necessary humility I consider to be inherent to the viewpoints.

This is why dialogue/ conversation is important. Not just definitions...
Atheism is a lack of belief. Not that there is an active belief that there is no god.
Just break the word down:
A = Without, no
Theism = Belief in a god/ deity.
But regardless of the definition that you so choose, what matters is what the majority of Atheists stances are.
And they will all state lack of belief. Not an active belief.

I like what the Dali lama said, which was in answer in an interview when asked, what if science proved there was no god? He said ( I paraphrase) then there’s no god. Be nice.

I have decided I really don't care whether there is a God or not. Now I need a term to describe my fervently held beliefs.

Of course your post is brilliant I very much agree that those definition should be clearly defined although how people Define themselves is their own business

my question is if we define god as nature in the style of Spinoza how do we Define ourselves the critical point is Nature Cares About Us or if we were gone nature could go on just fine without us

This never stops coming up. The two terms are NOT mutually exclusive I assure you. The difference is also not hard to remember. All you need to know is that they answer two different questions.

Do you KNOW? no, agnostic
Do you BELIEVE? no, atheist.

Its not hard or contradictory at all to admit we don't know but also have no reason to believe.

[slate.com]

Here's the article I spoke of. Lol, "At least we know what we don't know.
By Ron Rosenbaum"

.thanx--does need to be heard;
wish like u that we can move forward;
gives me ammunition for when
someone sneezes--the people are counted who don't say"G*Bless,
sometimes we are the minority

I have always thought the same as you. Oddly enough I think the term atheist just gives theists more power. It actually gives theists the idea that they are on the same playing field, because of course no honest person can claim to know if we were created by something greater or not.

It could just be my chances when talking to atheists, but it seems they more often say things that disprove the biblical god and act like knowing all the physics behind our world is somehow proof that there is no god. Proving the Abrahamic god is false and knowing everything about physics still doesn’t prove that the system wasn’t set up by something else. Even if it becomes pointless to know, which I believe it is, it still won’t prove or disprove that we aren’t in a simulation.

Also being agnostic does NOT at all mean you think god may exist. It just means you don’t know, and often agnostics don’t even care, which usually isn’t an atheists position. In fact it sets up religious folk up with the most annoying comebacks of all “you can’t prove that god doesn’t exist, just like I can’t prove he does” and “if you are so sure that he doesn’t exist, you are believing with religious faith, then I guess that is your religion”
Whereas an agnostic person knows its ok not to know things and is content with the facts that some things are unknowable...which is very much a more honest and scientific stance if you think about it. Scientists don’t claim to know things they don’t and are ok with that, it wouldn’t be scientific any other way.

At best any athest who understands how the scientific model works can only claim there is no god as a hypothesis not a theory. It isn’t a theory until it withstands scrutiny and heavy testing.

I absolutely do not believe the Abrahamic god as portrayed in the bible or similar holy texts is real. These holy texts disprove themselves with contradictions and inaccuracies.

I will let it go with your above quoted and reposted text and just go on from there. This is what happens when you have all these books bound together that were never meant to be bound together. It means that your bible is all made up. Gods have written none of it and no gods are trying to get in touch with you. Call me by whatever name you want. This is why I do not believe in god.

I'm an Atheist because I believe in zero gods.

I'm an agnostic because I have no knowledge of a God.

Edit

I choose to go by Atheist simply because it is more clear to those who are less knowledgeable than you, and many others on this site. Both terms fit most of us because strong disbelief in the existence of a god and one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of or a god are not mutually exclusive. I really doubt there is a god, to the tune of less than 1%, but I cannot say it is zero and so here we are. Many would have a similar stance with some degree of movement on the %. Others just don't care enough involve math. Either should be accepting of the other.

Wow, what a post! But yeah. Basically you can't prove something doesn't exist. If you believe 'that' then Atheism really can't exist.

There.