That's funny. I've always said atheism answers No to a belief claim and agnosticism answers No to a knowledge claim. Technically we're all atheist and agnostic on many things.

Sadly, Matt is incorrect here, I already KNOW I am not an atheist, because I already KNOW that "I DON'T BELIEVE the statement 'Gods do/don't exist' is either true or false." The keyword being BELIEVE. Atheists BELIEVE; agnostics either KNOW or DON'T KNOW.

BELIEVING, to me, means "thinking a statement is true or false regardless of proof". KNOWING is "thinking a statement is true on the basis of proof." Proof, in this context, being statements logical derived from accurate and precise rules describing repeatable observable phenomenon (Science!).

I don't like to commit the act of BELIEVING, I prefer to either KNOW or DON'T KNOW.

I DON'T KNOW if the statement "gods do/don't exist" is either true or false. I also KNOW that I DON'T BELIEVE the statement "god's do/don't exist" is either true or false. Again, I try not to commit the act of 'believing' anything, unless I need to do it and see immediate result (elections, experiments). Atheists, by observational (empirical) definition, seem to BELIEVE the statements 'gods do not exist' is true and "gods do exist" is false, regardless of proof.

In that context, Matt is wrong. I do already KNOW I'm not an atheist.

Actually I believe even Dawkins said there is no proof there is no god. But as there is no proof, you'd have to be very silly indeed to believe

if one doesn't know if there is a god, then they are not practicing the cult

I voted yes because under they beliefs of most religions they would be considered non-believers, infidels, or whatever.

People are confused because they want a way to not be offensive. When someone claims to believe in unicorns they have no problem being offensive because society says its ok to blast people for believing in ridiculous things.. It's mostly just caving to society saying its offensive to say god doesn't exist but its ok to say IDK. They want a third choice so bad because of it but either there is or isn't a god, no third choice really exists. Its always on the people making the claim to prove it but they can't so they have turned the rules upside down for this one special case.

People are confused because they want a way to not be offensive but when someone claims to believe in unicorns they have no problem being offensive because society says its ok to blast people for believing in ridiculous things.. It's mostly just caving to society saying its offensive to say god doesn't exist but its ok to say IDK. They want their to be a third choice so bad because of it but either there is or isn't a god, no third choice really exists. Its always on the people making the claim to prove it but they can't so they have turned the rules upside down for this one special case.

We do this a lot here, huh?

No. Some agnostic individuals are theists. They don't really know, but still believe, still go to church, still call themselves Christian/Muslim/Satanist/Pastafarian. In fact, I'd argue the majority of believers are agnostic. I can't prove it, but so many people around me are "Christian" without having to go to church, without ever praying, without ever thinking about Jesus or anything else.

Atheists make a false claim that only believers have to show proof. I consider myself an ignostic. If you are in Christian,Muslim or Jew I am an atheist, but if you're anything else I don't know. There is no Universal unambiguous definition of what God even is, so therefore it makes sense for me to be agnostic/ignostic. The argument is very similar to is there life on other planets. It's very unscientific to say there's absolutely 100% zero chance of life on other planets because we have not shown proof that there is. When it comes to the universe we do not have the technology to truly explore the cosmos. The lack of knowledge about the cosmos does NOT translate into there is a 100% chance that there is no life out there.

If you were to look up the definition of agnostic in a dictionary, that would probably clear up your confusion on the matter.

Randy

As a former agnostic turned atheist, that's pretty accurate. But most agnostics wouldn't agree, just as I wouldn't have agreed back when I was an agnostic.

Doesn’t really matter. If anyone cares about that sort of banality they probably need to take up golf or rally driving or anything that gets them out of the house.

No.

I can't answer because as an atheist it's not that I don't believe in a god, I see no evidence for one so there's nothing to believe in.

In some cases, yes, but not all IMO.

sure, why not

no, i don't agree. what i think is that people spend too much time trying to define words that actually each have more than one meaning in that their meanings are broad. an atheist can be someone who doesn't believe in any gods, or someone who firmly believes there are no gods. both are atheists. some agnostics explain themselves by saying they don't believe in any gods but cannot state that there definitely are none because they don't know; others say they're simply unsure; others are offended when people say agnostics are unsure. there is a RANGE for each and they overlap. i won't oversimplify just so we can have two clearly labeled barrels to toss people into.

g