Atheists, agnostics most knowledgeable about religion, survey says

i know. i can make up another right now. so could you. anyone could. that is the point. i didnt actually make up a religion. i was trying to explain that religions exist that we know nothing about, and we dont believe in them (even though we are literally ignorant of them)

think of a religion right now. just make one up. call it sabanfanism. red doesnt believe in the god of sabanfanism, or any of the tenets of your new religion. red is "atheist" with respect to your new religion. he is not "agnostic" with respect to this religion. understand? he lacks knowledge about your religion, he doesnt know if it is true (at least not for sure), so he doesnt believe it. atheist. see?

explain.

i am saying that there is really no such thing as agnostic. red claims there are 3 states of belief. belief, non-belief, and undetermined. i say there isnt because undetermined is same thing as non-belief. like you are undetermined about the religion i made up.

many people assert that atheism is when you are certain that god doesnt exist. it doesnt mean that. and nobody thinks that. trust me. i have read all the books of all the prominent atheists. sam harris, christopher hitchens, richard dawkins daniel dennett, all of them. not one of them, or anyone else would claim they are positive god doesnt exist. that would be stupid. and yet these guys are america's most prominent "atheists". but literally they are not sure. but keep in mind what "not sure" means. it means in the mathematical/proof/logic sense. it means "not sure" in the same sense that you cannot be sure that les miles isnt god. he really might be. you cant prove he isnt. so think about how unlikely that is, and how sure you are it isnt true. pretty damn sure. but not positive. thats atheism. it is the lack of belief.

people misrepresent that all the time. again, i cannot prove les miles is not god. so people might say "well you cant prove it either way, so we are agnostic with respect to it". wrong. we dont believe it at all. but that doesnt mean we are certain.

i know, you guys are not getting it. you in particular are perpetuating the misunderstanding. dont worry i am patient.

 

Red would like to worship at the altar of SabanFan but he struggles mightily with the devil, Liberalism.

 

i know you cant prove the non-existence. that doesn't mean you should reserve judgment and act agnostic with respect to sabanfans god. the honest reality is that you dont believe in sabanfanism. so to be truthful would be to say that you are atheist with respect to that particular faith.

 

see, i think that this is exactly the only thing that matters.



im done with trying to define "athiest" and "agnostic". we need words to describe the three main classes of people--those that believe in something specific, those that believe in something (but dont commmit---basically those that arent brave enough to be athiests), and those that dont believe any god exists.

these have always been my definitions for believers/religious, agnostic and athiest, but evidently wrong.

 

gumborue seems to understand why the conventional definitions lead red to confusion. for the last time, the atheist isnt saying he can prove god doesnt exist. he is saying the evidence is insufficient for belief, which once again, is the only rational position.

going forward i think we all hope that red thinks it through.

 

he likes to use his brain on occasion.

factually incorrect. it means without theism, theism is a belief. so it means "without belief". not the same thing as "without god"