Is Atheist vs. Agnostic conflict a real thing? I see many posts that make it sound like some difficulty. I do not recall ever hearing of such a debate, much less an impassioned one.
Semantics.
The disagreement is usually about the usage/definition of the words.
Call yourself what you want.
If you don't believe that theist claims stand up to scrutiny then you will call yourself one or the other.
Indeed, we may call ourselves what we want. No one is obligated to take you seriously. To quibble over meaning is not insignificant, Otherwise we may as well stick with grunts and clicks.
Wait wait wait....Atheists and Agnostics are supposed to fight? I didnt know that.
*draws his sword blessed by Dawkins and Darwin and Hume
Ok you Atheists en garde! I will show you who the "true" leaders of the humanist movement are.
That is the spirit! oh, wait...
It might do us all a kindness to rememmbet that many people don't understand the meaning of the various types of non believers. There is a wide gulf of ideas and experiences to traverse. A genuine agnostic is vastly different than a free thinker, or someone who is violently antireligious. It is our prejudices and intransigent ideas which are the issue
Speak softly and carry a thick skin.
My question is if Theist is the belief in one god, therefore, Atheist, then Deism as the belief in more than one god would be Deist, are not most proclaimed Atheist really Adeist?
...I guess we needed a little confusion in the mix...to make it interesting!
"The higher, the fewer"
It is not a 'real thing,' unless YOU want to make it so! Then you must provide details to keep you in the debate...mud slinging want get it...lol. seriously, I have not noticed that! What I did notice that brought me here...was that beautiful color on your post! It is an artist thing...
The few times I have discussed more fully what I would profess, I have said that I was a philosophical Agnostic and a practical Atheist. I would suppose that we all necessarily are forced into a state of agnosticism in that we do not and in principle, may not know everything. After this we are only left with what we may deduce from that which we may be reasonably sure to be true. For my experience and knowledge I can only come to the conclusion that gods are not. That there are men, motives and faulty reasoning, I may rely.
Well, I think I believe and agree about something one day and the next day I find out that I was leaning toward something else. ..I am still stuck on that color, though!
We have bigger fish to fry. Lets get on with it. Let's just be the AA's.
I think it's mostly a matter of degree, and of perception. I call myself atheist, because I am 99.99% sure there's nobody behind the curtain. I'm willing to say that I would change my mind if presented with credible evidence. Someone else with the same attitude and numbers might call him/herself agnostic because of that .01%.
This is the only site (and the only person, actually) that I have ever seen/had this debate. It's basically semantics and one of the silliest things I've ever wasted my time debating, but in a room full of people who identify as one/both or people trying to decide how to identify, I felt it was important to put my 96 cents in.
What happened to the other 4 cents...was that the rich part?
One day when you are my age, you will look back and see...nothing is ever wasted in the 'big picture!'
@Freedompath I don't know where 96 came from, just needed a large multiple of 2 to comment on how much time I've spent on it.
And you certainly don't hear about atheist extremest bombing agnostic library temples on the evening news.