this is the only rational position. to not believe in god, while understanding that is not mathematically factually proven that he doesnt exist. the simplest way to define it is you either believe in god or you dont. you either have beleif or you dont. you are theist, or a-theist. an agnostic is hungup on the obvous idea that we humans are not gods ourselves with absolute knowledge of every crevice of the universe. so any claim, no matter how wildly absurd it is, if it cannot be proven false, it cant be proven false. doesnt mean the claim isnt obviously based on nothing. and why would we believe something without evidence? yes. but i think it is most clear to define ourselves based on what we believe or dont believe. the idea that cant prove things is a given. exactly. "like anything else unproven" is the key phrase. like the idea that the sun will not rise tomorrow. no evidence for that, but we cant be sure. or that my closet has a rhino in it. i dont see why it would, but i havent looked recently. yes, which makes him a deist, like our best founding fathers. kinda an extreme position in modern times. i suppose. my contention is that the agnostic part, the part reminding folks that there some things that cannot be proven, it goes without saying. obviously atheists havent wandered the entire universe with a flawless god-detector and found nothing. do we really always need to remind each other about the nature of proving a negative?
I am agnostic with respect to all Gods, obviously. Whatever does it matter what religious mythology is in question? There is a consensus on the matter and it is you who are not part of it. You are trying to "evolve" a new definition for reasons unclear to me.
have you not on many occasions claimed to believe in a creator? how are you agnostic with respect to him? and the point of mentioning the older myths is to emphasize how likely they are. every prominent atheist thinker, according to you, is agnostic. they all understand the simple logical concept that a negative can be impossible to prove. in the case of an invisible magic god, you cant prove he doesnt exist, he is so magic he avoids detection. and so betrand russell, christopher hitchens, daniel dennett, even richard dawkins, all defined by popular belief and themselves as atheists. but not according to red and his interpretation of some dictionary, they are agnostics. who exactly is it that needs to evolve? perhaps you need to write mr dawkins and tell him he is agnostic? and every reporter that calls him a "prominent atheist". all wrong. that guy cant prove god doesnt exist! for all he knows god is right this minute partying with the spaghetti monster and lucille ball in another galaxy. maybe you should remind him. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there" - prominent atheist richard dawkins, who is according to red, agnostic.
There is a fundamental diffenece that has always existed despite martin's assertions. agnostic coomes from the Greek a + gnōsis = without knowledge atheist come from the Greek a + theos = without God.
dawkins defines the strong atheist as: "Strong atheist. 'I know there is no god" yunno how i say this person is incredibly rare? dawkins agrees: he would be "surprised to meet many people in [this] category" so according to red, dawkins is not himself not atheist, but he knows so few that he would be surprised to meet them.
theist and theos are clearly not the same word. the suffix "ism" means a belief. whatever "ism" is the practice and believe in whatever. so it means "faithism" or "godism". so you are "without" + "belief". not "with" + "a negative belief" cant you see how simple this is? do you know what the word theism is? do you you know what is is to be without theism?
I claim to believe, I do not claim to know. All atheists are agnostic in a sense, because they cannot know the unknowable. But not all agnostics are atheists, because they cannot disbelieve the unknowable. Understand?
You are quite wrong. Provably wrong. Theos does not mean "belief", it means "God". It's the greek word for deity. Theos as in Theology--the study of God. Greek/English Translator
yes but religion/god is a personal matter to billions of people whether you understand it or not. its a lot different than having a discussion with them about a rhino in their closet or something else insignificant to them. thats why when you mock them you get a much stronger reaction of one than the other. theres lots of abstract things such as intuition or hunger that cant really be measured. some people may claim they do not exist while others know for a fact they do. yet both are something you cant really prove. or disprove. asking someone to explain their notion of god may be akin to proving they are happy. you want physical proof for something spiritual many people "believe" they have experienced at some point in their life. if not on a continual basis. i think thats why you will never get an answer you seek; though it doesnt discount it happened whether they can prove it or not. whether its a figment of their imagination or actually something of a spiritual power is something only they know. or think they know. or their god knows if he exists. arguing god/religion with someone is no different than arguing they have a headache. they can try to explain it but they can never really prove or disprove it. you just have to have faith they simply have a headache.
of course! what is wrong with you! theISM does! please pay attention. theos and the theIST are not the same word. jesus christ, read them twice if you have to. i never claimed to be an "atheost". theos = god =/= theism theism = belief in theos do you think botany is the same word as botanist? is satan the same word as satanism? what is wrong with you?
