I think you might be confusing antitheism with atheism.

Only if you view atheists as close minded and unwilling to accept new evidence to change their minds if warranted. Atheism is logical.

I don’t think so. @Sheitelhau

@Gatovicolo are you saying that you're a theist then? Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. There are agnostic theists and agnostic atheists. Atheism-theism is a matter of belief and agnosticism-gnosticism is a matter of certainty.

Atheism is a matter of certainty without proof while agnosticism is the acknowledgement of the impossibility of proof. @Sheitelhau

@Gatovicolo No, you're simply wrong, even down to the etymology of the word.

In this variation of the word, the prefix "a-" means "without or opposite," with the distinction being "or" from the prefix "anti-." For example, "asocial" refers to an indifference or aversion to social activity, whereas "antisocial" refers solely to aversion to social activity.

Furthermore, the term originated as a designation of those that did not follow the popular religion of Greece, later applied by the Romans to the growing Christian communities.

Your definition of atheism also ignores the ideas of "positive" and "negative" atheism, with the positive claiming certainty and the negative claiming uncertainty.

If you have no foundation for your asserted definition, I'd suggest you check out the work the work of one of the many atheistic speakers of our day. Richard Dawkins is a good example of a reputable agnostic atheist, and I think there's a lot for anyone to gain from his work. The Atheist Experience is a favorite of mine, and they have quite a few episodes archived on YouTube.

Not really. @Sheitelhau

@Gatovicolo Haha, alright then

Given I didn’t define anything, your assertion has no base. I suggest you look into the Oxford dictionary of philosophy rather than you-tube to get your information, but that’s just me. You could also just read the appropriate sections of Wikipedia, they parallel the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, but Wikipedia has a pretty bad reputation. Maybe you could read the appropriate sections of a History of Modern Philosophy. @Sheitelhau

"Atheism is a matter of certainty without proof while agnosticism is the acknowledgement of the impossibility of proof." That looks like a basic definition to me.

I did as you said and looked through a History of Modern Philosophy, and from the wording of the text, the author seems to have a negative bias toward atheism. The vast majority of it's mentions are needlessly derogatory in the context of the passages they come from.

Looking through the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Atheism is not referred to as anything claiming certainty that god doesn't exist but the mere belief that he doesn't exist. It even begins the passage saying that the common usage of the term is not inconsistent with agnosticism. It says "A stricter sense denotes a belief that there is no God," which is consistent with the idea of strong and weak atheism.

I think there's more to these concepts than what you've decided on. Agnosticism does not preclude the belief or disbelief in god.

Having been raised and educated in the Catholic Church, I can say that it asserts in it's dogma that there is no way to be certain of anything regarding their god (the sacred mysteries), even his existence, but that doesn't stop them from believing in that god. In this way they are dogmatically agnostic theists. Although, a priest of Catholicism will most likely preach gnostic theism in his homilies. The latter stance is unsatisfying in its arbitrary nature, and the former simply tries to obfuscate the arbitrary bits.

I would like to say that I'm sorry if I've come off as offensive to you, as I think I might have. My friends say I have no tact when presenting my ideas, and I agree. I hope you can look past this and speak to my points. @Gatovicolo

You’re entitled to your opinion. Have a nice day. @Sheitelhau

@Gatovicolo nah, you miss the point entirely. I don't want my opinion. At any point I have no way of saying that anything at all that I believe is valid. I want to combat my own opinions with the opinions of others, and if my opinions lose it is to my benefit.

Bugger off mate. @sillysketcher