folks seem confused by the definition of atheism. they tend to accuse atheists of being absolutely certain that god does not exist. clearly nobody could possibly know for sure that there is no god. and some of you make claims that you actually know folks that are positive that god doesnt exist. my claim is that these people are just being lazy and unspecific is casual conversation (or they are simply stupid). my claim is that the idea that atheists not only dont beleive in god, but believe for sure that there is no god, is not a real opinion held by anyone, and mainly used as a straw man by believers. the point is that atheist is a lack of belief. admitting you dont know, that is atheism. so anyways, here is bertrand russell on this topic, describing what i mean: "Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me. Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place they always ask me what is my religion. "I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods. None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof. Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists." - bertrand russell the point is that one would never bother saying "well, i think the greek myth gods are possible". but all of us would say we are atheist with respect to the greek myths, even though we technically cannot say for sure.
The term is clearly defined and preludes the existence of God. What you now claim to be also is clearly defined, and it is not atheism.
what i have always claimed to be, since i was 12 years old, and have explained many, many times here, and to you directly many times. did you read my quote at all? bertrand russell is explaining why the public understanding of the term leads to confusion. please pay attention: "if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist" - Bertrand Russell why didnt you bother to read or understand what mr russel is saying? why must i repeat this so many times? why dont you understand this simple concept? martin does not believe in god, so martin is atheist. red does believ in god, so red is not agnostic or atheist. martin cannot prove god does not exist, but that doesnt mean he believes in god. there are infinite things martin cannot prove do not exist. such is the nature of proof of a negative. if you say the sun will not rise tomorrow, martin does not believe you. but martin cannot prove it either way. that doesnt mean i am agnostic with respect to your claim, i dont believe you. this is so simple, and yet i have to explain and and correct folks so much. why so stupid everyone?
indicendally i disagree with both the claims in your agnostic definition 1. The doctrine that certainty about absolute truth is unattainable why would it be unattainable? how should i know if it is attainable or not? 2. The belief that there can be no proof why cant there be proof? just because i dont have any proof doesnt mean there isnt proof somewhere.
i hate that i have to further illustrate this point, but i will with the orbiting teapot example. if i told you that there is an intelligent teapot orbiting jupiter, you cant prove that isnt true. but that doesnt mean you are agnostic with respect to that teapot. the claim is clearly absurd and you dont believe it! but you cannot prove it. so should i be an idiot and go "AHA! you cannot prove it can you! then perhaps it is true AHAHAHA LOLZ. you are in fact an agnostic with respect to the teapot, even though you claim to not believe in it. i caugfht you haha LOLZ I AM DUM FAGUT"
"I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say that one is an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow it was better to say one was a humanist or agnostic. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect that he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time." -Isaac Asimov
"Atheists are thought to be closed-minded because they deny the existence of gods, whereas agnostics appear to be open-minded because they do not know for sure. This is a mistake because atheists do not necessarily deny any gods and may indeed be an atheist because they do not know for sure" link: Atheism vs. Agnosticism: What's the Difference? Are they Alternatives to Each Other?
Russell may have his philosphy. It reaffirms that there are accepted definitions and that he chooses to go against them and gives his reasons. Thus, Russell is a poor source for the definitions we seek. They are not my claims, nor are they some philosophers argument. It is the dictionary definition. You know, the consensus of thought on the definition of words. The authority. Yes, why is everyone so stupid and only one who is right? Doesn't that defy reason? I begin to see the source of your . . . confusion. You don't own a dictionary! You are confusing being agnostic (which concerns God and absolute truth) with being skeptical (which can refer to bloody anything). Teapots and claims are neither deities not absolute truths. skep⋅ti⋅cal –adjective 1. inclined to skepticism; having doubt 2. showing doubt Yet your maintain an agnostic belief.
it isnt just russell. it is wikipedia, it is every smart philosopher. it is better dictionaries. and a nobel prize winning philosopher is really not to be scoffed at when he is defining a complex topic that he specializes in. especially relative to a simplistic dictionary definition. words evolve. we understand things better over time. we complete our understandings. the dictionary is not a static thing. i know you lie down and submit to any and all consensuses (consensi?). i have a question. is red55 is atheist with respect to the greek myths? we can all agree that red cannot prove the greek gods do not exist, right? you simply arent thinking this through at all.
seems to me there is a lot of overlap between some atheists and agnostics. those agnostics who believe very strongly there is no god but leave the smallest opening that it is possible are the same as the atheist you claim to be. maybe the word agnostic came about because atheists got a bad rap. maybe this is just another label that evolved to make clear that most atheists dont dispute there could be a god. just that they are indifferent until theres something to prove otherwise. like anything else unproven. atheism and agnosticism clearly are not mutually exclusive. red claims to believe in some sort of deity simply because his intuition and experience tells him so. maybe this makes him an agnostic theist. while you are an agnostic atheist.
