Atheists, agnostics most knowledgeable about religion, survey says

both assert knowledge you dontn have. you can neither know that god doesnt exist, nor can you know whether we can or can't know if he exists.

again, this is very simple. we dont know that god exists. we dont know that god does not exist. that doesnt mean either possibility is equally likely. a rational person does not believe assertions randomly without evidence. therefore a rational personal doesnt believe in god. it is the only rational position.

99.99%. atheist are smart. they are not pretending to know something they cannot. they do not claim to have knowledge that god doesnt exist.

the thing that trips you up (and not just you, but most people who mischaracterize this) is the diffence between not believing something, and being absolutely certain about it.

i believe the example i used before is that i do not believe the royals will win the next 20 world series. i really really dont believe that. cant be certain though. iw owuld be silly of me to say that i am literally positive it wont happen, because i dont know for sure.

 

the key word is believe. that means they dont know, they are unsure.

 

of course. and every atheist is unsure. anything is possible. but all hypotheses that are presented without any evidence whatsoever are the same. meaning my assertion that i can fly is exactly as valid as the christian god. anything is possible. you dont believe i can fly, but you dont know for certain. it would be pretty damn retarded of you to believe i could. not certain though!

 

red i am aware that you are using conventional definitions, for the most part.

the atheist community (and i promise you they are are not 100% certain god doesnt exist) has been trying to help people understand what atheism means forever, and part of the problem is that the conventional definitions are not adequate and lead to confusion.

again, it would be absurd of you to claim you are agnostic with respect to Poseidon. i think if you understand that point, then eventually grok my point.

the english language, being fantasic, will evolve and this will be more well understood over time. i promise you i am not some loony loner trying to change what words mean. atheists have been fighting this battle forever. the whole business leads people to think that atheism is an arrogant position, which it isnt. it is the least arrogant position possible.

 

again, words have meaning, and sometimes it is difficult to determine what people mean. the meaning is important, not the words used. when a person says they are an atheist, almost every single time they mean what i am telling you.

i am aare that there is some ambiguity, which i am trynig to clear up. wikipedia knows wasssup:

"Writers disagree how best to define and classify atheism,[30] contesting what supernatural entities it applies to, whether it is an assertion in its own right or merely the absence of one, and whether it requires a conscious, explicit rejection. A variety of categories have been proposed to try to distinguish the different forms of atheism."

Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

perhaps you are right about the definitions, but this definition of "agnostic" is too broad. what use is it if it includes people that dont believe god exists and people that believe god exists?

i dont care what the word is, but i want one exclusive from those that believes god exists.

 

exactly. the current words fail to convey the meanings. the word agnostic is not necessary. its an either/or. you believe in god or you dont. you are with or without theism.

withX or (without X) = everyone. no other words necessary.