Can you provide a source for that?
Everything I've read points to David Mitchell being at most agnostic, and in real terms, an atheist who doesn't understand what the word means.

I wasn't raised in a religious home so I never had that aspect in my life of seeking comfort from the idea of God. I believed that we were products of random chance, although the real love and connection I felt to people and this reality did not feel that way. Essentially, though, I had resigned myself to the fact of my future death, and that eventually no one would ever remember or care that I even existed.

I was an agnostic towards the idea of God at that point. Atheism to me was the other extreme from theism, and I believed that the rational standpoint was agnosticism. If you did not have equal skepticism towards either side, I felt you were being intellectually dishonest. You could sum it up in a simple statement, that everything, including the fact that anything exists at all, is equally unlikely. To try to get that fact to point towards or away from a God in my opinion just showed bias.

I changed my mind when I began to have supernatural experiences. This didn't make me a theist, but it did open my eyes to the idea that there was a spiritual reality. It was in pursuing that spirituality that I received revelation that an all powerful, benevolent God does exist. After this, I became a Christian and was born again, and transformed into a new person.

So, what I would say is, there is no evidence of God beyond personal revelation by God. This is by design because God requires us to seek Him by faith. He is seeking those who will worship Him in Spirit and in truth. If you want to know whether there is a God or not, you must seek Him with all of your heart. Seek Him while it is still called today, because today is the day of salvation.

Jeremiah 29:13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

Meh, everyone is either agnostic, lying or mad. As @newtboy said, gnosticism means "knowing". No-one knows for certain that there is or isn't a god. Therefore, everyone is agnostic.

Which makes it a fucking boring position to take.

Gnosticism at least has the virtue of being interesting. You know there's a god? ok, why? Ahh, you've heard voices.... right. Just slip on this comfy jacket... yeah, the arms are kinda long, but don't worry.

The question is almost never "do you know there is or isn't a god", it's "do you believe". And in that sense, almost everyone has an answer one way or the other. You may choose to believe in a god because you feel that things like compassion, rainbows and the majesty of the universe are evidence of his/her existence. Or you choose not to believe because you feel that these things are evidence of group altruism, refraction and some really amazingly weird ass physics.

Yeah, be humble and admit you could be wrong, but FFS, make a choice.

Oh and @Yogi, I wonder how kindly you'd feel toward religion if you had a well funded organisation who had dedicated themselves to discrediting your life's work (and with the most trivial nonsense as well).

And that is why we have "atheist evangelists". Because experience has shown that if you don't push back, certain theist elements will gradually start to encroach on things that are important.

@newtboy

On definitions, I recall a clip from The Atheist Experience where they made the distinction that while a/theism relates to what you believe, a/gnosticism relates to what you know. Colloquially it's all a bit of a wash but I think it's a good framework for outlining a specific belief.

You could be gnostic atheist, professing certain knowledge of no gods. Alternatively you could be an agnostic atheist, profession to not be able to know but choosing to believe in the lack of a god. Or you could be a gnostic theist, presuming to know by certainty that there is a god, although of course you would also be an atheist unless you believed religions coexisted simultaneously.

EDIT - D'oh, someone already said it.

I think 'agnostic' does not imply that both camps have equal footing, it only implies that you are honest enough to not state you have knowledge of the unknowable.
Are you open to the idea that there may not be a creator too, even a little? If so, you're agnostic...sorry. If there's any doubt (meaning you leave open the possibility there's no god) that's agnostic. Gnostic is certitude in your position that god exists.

EDIT: To me, anti-theism is believing that (X) god doesn't exist, so almost everyone is an anti-theist to some extent (unless they believe in every god ever conceived). I'm not sure there is a proper term for those that 'believe' there absolutely is no god at all...or for those that think they 'know' there's no god. perhaps pan-anti-theism and anti-gnostic?

I think you are incorrect in your assumption about "science". True scientists admit that they KNOW nothing, but have overwhelming evidence for one hypothesis or another. The claim that there "is no god" is not scientific. The claim that all evidence points towards the conclusion that there is no god is scientific. The claim that there is no need for god in order to explain the universe is also scientific.
Science does not "attack" the unknown, it investigates hypotheses and attempts to verify or prove them wrong. (investigation of the veracity of a religion is considered an attack by believers, but it isn't one) So far every hypothesis arguing for the existence of god(s) has proven false, and many hypotheses for alternative explanations that don't require god(s) have proven correct. Again, when the score is 1000000-0, you can call the game in my opinion...but to be 100% honest you have to leave open the tiny .00000000000000.......000001% possibility that the other team scores 1000001 points after you leave (but that kind of incredible claim requires credible incontrovertible proof, not just the teams claim it happened).
As pointed out above, atheism and agnosticism are answers to two different questions. If you believe in god(s) you are a theist, if you don't you are atheist. If you don't KNOW there is/are god(s) you are agnostic, if you do KNOW there is/are god(s) you are gnostic (the only one I think is outright wrong, because it's impossible to KNOW the unknowable, so all gnostics are dishonest, at least with themselves and more often with all others). It's about a distinction between beliefs and knowledge.

It reminds me of a great quote from my dad..."Truth is an idea in the mind of a crazy person....but you don't need to know the 'truth' in order to not lie."

here's the thing that convinced me that I wasn't an agnostic anymore.

I am not opposed to the idea of a creator.

I *am* opposed to every single depiction of a creator that humanity has come up with so far. petty, fear-based, eternal punishment for finite crimes, constant inconsistencies in their rules, ok with slavery, and absolutely shitty morals.

Sure..individual people have a personal vision of a much more...humane and moral creator that represents a much better view of a creator. But those ideas don't get any real traction in the public scene. It's always the hateful creator, the vengeful creator, The creator that somehow plays favorites and cures cancer and other diseases but only for certain people, but has never once given an amputee their limb back. the creator that picks the winners of football teams, the creator that somehow hates how you think and behave even though he created you that way. The creator that somehow sides with one political party and not the other.

I don't know if there is a creator, and when it comes right down to it, no one does either. But what I do know is that there is absolutely no evidence of ANY religions' creator(s) And even if there were, many, if not all of these creators have created rules systems that are just demonstrably...bad or so full of holes.

So you could say I am agnostic, but that, at least to me, implies that both views have an equal footing...that somehow there is evidence for both, but you just haven't decided which is stronger.

Theists have made claims but have not provided any good evidence to support those claims. Atheism is not declaring that there is no creator, just that the theists haven't made their case. So it's pretty clear that even if you don't know if there is a creator, if you call bullshit on religion, you're an atheist, not an agnostic. Religion and whether or not a creator exists are TWO SEPARATE THINGS.

It just comes down to burden of proof and the common misconception that atheism is the declaration that there is no creator. You can't prove a negative on this scale Believing that there is absolutely no creator is anti-theism, not atheism.

Firm agnostic here too. The most sane ideology to have today. Tomorrow it might be something else but i feel agnostics are the only ones to use diplomacy between godders and no-godders. Both groups can never understand each other, agnostics understand them both.

To anyone saying that agnosticism is simply just indecisiveness, and that is both sides: it is not. We simply don't think it's an issue you need to be on one side or the other. That's what you do. We accept both views and navigate between them trying to find what is real and what is not, since both sides try to manipulate true facts all the time according to your needs. We don't do that. If something, agnosticism is the true scientific approach; trying to find out what is true without any predisposition or beliefs...

It's ONLY that both sides are now so far apart that anything that contradicts them, is totally blasphemous/unscientific. There is no such thing as true agnosticism. There are people who are closer to believing in god and further away and no one cares how you think. People who belong to either of the marginal camps seems like idiots to me who are never going to be coaxed in either way; the more evidence you put on the table for one argument, you will oppose it even more. Its a futile discussion. We got much bigger problems to solve than if there's a god.

At the moment, there are more evidence pointing that there is no god. Nothing has been proven as a fact in either way. There would be same amount of violence with or without religion, the reasons would change superficially but nothing would change or will change if you abolish or religion. It takes about 10 years that new batch of believers arrive even if you eradicated all religion and all history: if you wipe people minds now, tomorrow someone believes in angels or goblins.. Or dragons.. It's inbuilt survival mechanism: you don't get it all, there must be a bigger plan etc.. it's human nature, not a part of our society. The feeling the presence of God is scientifically proven to be just a short circuit in our brain.. That alone makes it certain that belief in supernatural will go on.

Agnosticism is ridiculous bullshit.

Atheist: "I don't believe in (any) god."
Theist: "I believe in (a) god."

Agnostic: "I... don't know if I believe? I'll make up my mind when the evidence is in... on whether I believe.. or not."

Seriously, we all know there's no evidence against God's existence and no evidence for God's existence. It's not 'likely' that God exists or doesn't because God is by definition outside the rational bounds of likelihood, so the word 'likely' is absurdly irrelevant. You can't make a case for or against God, if you're being honest. You can just believe, or not believe, or be a dumbfuck bumbling agnostic.

I respect smart atheists and smart theists. I get annoyed by dumb atheists and dumb atheists and all agnostics.

But theism and gnosticism are two separate dimensions relating to belief and knowledge about gods. Theists/atheists believe in the existence or non-existence of gods. Gnostics/agnostics claim to possess knowledge that gods do or do not exist. Thus it is possible to be theist-gnostic, believing and knowing gods exist; theist-agnostic, believing but not knowing gods exist; atheist-gnostic, not believing in gods and knowing gods don't exist or atheist-agnostic, not believing in gods and not knowing gods don't exist.

Since there has never been any evidence of gods, indeed the notion of gods is not provable nor disprovable, I don't see being gnostic as an honest position either way, only agnosticism seems right to me. However on balance of probability atheism seems more rational. Atheist-agnostic me.

Hi voodooV..sorry it took me so long to reply.

you're committing another logical fallacy here. Argument from ignorance. just because you can't think of any other reason for morality doesn't prove god did it.

The fallacy you mentioned doesn't apply. The argument isn't for Gods existence, the argument is that atheism is incoherent because it has no foundation for morality, among other reasons. Ravi asked the question, without God what are the Ontic referrants for reality?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontic

To answer your question though. Survival...pure survival is pretty much the foundation of morality. what behavior ensures a long, prosperous and happy life? That's your morality right there. And it's all based on logic and reason, not an imaginary god.

is it better to be a dick to someone or is it better to work with other people. hrm...which ensures a higher probability of success in your endeavors.

is better in the long run to help or to hurt. Which ensures a greater likelyhood that people will be willing to help YOU out when you need it.

virtually everything that we consider moral today is the evolution (gasp) of instinctual rules we've learned over the millions (not thousands) of years that ensure a longer, happier life.

What you're talking about is pragmatism, which is to say that if it works then it is the best way to do things. Yet plenty of people have led long, prosperous and happy lives by exploiting other people for their gain. That's what works for them, so why shouldn't I emulate that standard of behavior instead of being self-sacrificing? Some of the most successful people who have ever lived got there by being terrible human beings. Basically, your standard of survival isn't about what is right, but what is right for me and that is entirely arbitrary. It also is an incoherent standard for morality.

Which is why only two of your commandments still hold up as secular laws.

I forget where I learned this but even biblical morality can be traced back to rules that made sense, at the time, that ensured survival. I think it has been shown that many of the biblical rules involving not eating certain foods can be traced back to diseases or some other logical reason, but hey, we didn't have an understanding of these pesky little things called bacteria and microorganisms back then so when you ate a certain food and died, that wasn't science, it was your imaginary sky god who was angry with you.

What's really interesting about that is that Moses was educated as an Egyptian prince, which was the most advanced country in the world at the time. He would have certainly been exposed to their medical knowledge, but you won't find a shred of that in the bible. The Egyptians were doing things like applying dung to peoples wounds, whereas the Laws of Moses detailed procedures for disease control, like hand washing and quarantine procedures, as well as public sanitation, and dietary laws which prevented the spread of parasites. They were thousands of years ahead of their time; we only started washing our hands to control disease in the past 200 years.

Even your fear and hatred of homosexuality and abortion can be easily explained by survival. When your village only numbered in the hundreds or maybe thousands and simple diseases and winters wiped out LOTS of people, discouraging homosexuality and abortion is actually a pretty good idea when the survival of your species is at stake. But when you've got advanced medicine and we've got the whole food and shelter thing dealt with and our population is now 7 billion. the whole "be fruitful and multiply" thing just isn't necessary anymore. In fact, it's becoming a problem. and Once again, survival will dictate our morality. If we do nothing to combat overpopulation and resources become an issue, I guarantee you that large families will eventually have a negative stigma attached to them until the situation is resolved.

You're talking to a former agnostic who once approved of homosexuality and abortion. I am not afraid of it, and I don't hate the people doing it. This is a clash of presuppositions; if there isn't a God then I couldn't give you an absolute reason why people cannot have homosexual relationships or murder their unborn children. If we're all just glorified apes contending for limited resources, then in that paradigm it may be necessary to cull the herd. I think the appropriate response though to someone contending we should eliminate vast swaths of the human populace to save the planet is, "you first".

But God is in control and this is His planet, and since He is still creating human beings, He will provide the resources to take care of them. It's the iniquity of mankind which is limiting the resources when the truth is that we have way more than enough to take care of everyone. Take for example the fact that over 30 thousand people starve to death every day. Is that because we don't have enough food? Actually, we have more than enough food yet we waste about 1/3 of the world food supply every year. The gross world product in 2012 was over 84 trillion dollars, more than enough to feed, clothe, house and vaccinate every single person on the planet. Those people die not because there isn't enough, but because the wickedness of man.

Don't ask me though, ask an anthropologist or sociologist. They've been studying this stuff for decades. I'm sure you could even find an anthropologist/sociologist that believes in god and they'd still say the same thing. our understanding of reality changes....as does morality. no one takes seriously the old biblical rules about stoning unruly kids, working the sabbath, and wearing clothing of two types of fabric anymore. So why should we listen other outdated biblical rules that don't apply anymore. As countless others of sifters have already informed you, you have the burden of proof and you haven't met it yet.

Call me when someone discovers a disease or some other problem that arises when you mix two fabrics and we'll revisit those rules k?

God has three kinds of laws, moral civil and cermonial. The rules you're referring to were civil and ceremonial laws for Israel and not for the rest of the world. They have no application today because they were connected to the Old Covenant God had with Israel. God has a New Covenant with the whole world that doesn't include those laws. The moral laws of God do not change with time, or ever. And although we fancy ourselves as more enlightened today, the reality of the world we live in tells us that human nature hasn't changed one bit. Human nature is every bit as ugly and self serving as it always has been. If you peel back the thin veneer of civility you will find a boiling pot of iniquity.

Stop committing basic logical fallacies and you might learn this stuff for yourself You haven't ever said anything that isn't easily invalidated by a simple logical fallacy or hasn't already been debunked long ago.

It's easy to speak in generalities; if I have committed a logical fallacy, then specifically point it out. The one that you detailed earlier did not apply.

Do you watch the Atheist Experience videos Shiny? because every time I watch one of the videos and listened to the same old tired theist "arguments" over and over again. I'm always reminded of you because you just aren't saying anything new. If you're serious about understanding why your ideas just don't pan out and you're not just trolling, you should seriously watch those.

I've watched the show, and again, I was a lifelong agnostic before becoming a Christian. I was pretty far left and would have probably fit in well with the lot of you not too many years ago. So, this is all to say that I understand where you're coming from and why you think and believe the way you do, because I used to think and believe in the same ways. Your mindset isn't a mystery to me. What I've learned about it is that God has to reveal Himself to a person before they will know anything about Him. Everyone gets some revelation and it is up to them to follow it. I received the revelation that there is a God and I pursued that for many years until He revealed Himself to me through His Son Jesus Christ. He has revealed Himself to you and everyone else on this website in some form or fashion. You would be shocked to hear some of the revelation people have received and turned away from, or rationalized away later. Statistics show that 10 percent of self professing atheists pray, and that is because they are unable to within themselves completely deny the revelation that they have received. I guarantee you there are atheists on this board who wrestle with all of this but since it isn't something atheists talk about (or would admit to publicly) you would never know it, that you're all keeping a lid on the truth.

Look at the situation agnostic of what you know of as the law.
People in modern society have been so well-trained to look at things objectively from the perspective of The Law vs. The Individual.
Wouldn't you be offended if some "authority" came to your home and decided to inspect what you were doing?
I completely understand both sides. I know the police were doing what they have been programmed to, and the civilians were reacting the way our anti-authoritarian subculture has told them too, but there is a middle ground.
Between the two parties I believe the police acted most appropriately because they showed doubt and restraint (regardless of it being out of ignorance or self-restraint). In the end the situation could have been resolved best by openness and honesty on both parts, but that's the one element that our current state has beaten into submission.

I've followed long rabbit warrens before on this, so let's start with definitions:
I am arguing from the definition of the following:
Atheist as the belief that there is NOT a God or Gods.
Agnostic as the belief that one does not, or can not know if there are or are not God(s).

From those definitions, non-theist religions would be completely compatible for an Atheist to be party to. If we already are in disagreement then hurray, we likely agree and it's just semantics.

From the above definitions though, my problem arises with claims that any particular belief or non-belief is far more 'special' than the others and it alone provides great benefit X to society. Those kind of bold proclamations have historically always led to fanatical behaviors and tragedy.

I don't recognize Atheism as being linked one way or another to forcing ones beliefs onto others. Plenty of theist religions claim strong prohibitions against forcing their beliefs on others. Atheism though, as you say, is merely a non-belief in God(s) and so said people can equally support or oppose forcing said belief on others. What might that look like? Well, North Korea perhaps if one must request the most extreme of examples. From strict definitions, I'm pretty sure it is accurate to describe the <ahem>Great<ahem> Leader(s) as atheists who have whole heartedly embraced forcing their own beliefs on their people at threat of death or worse. One can rest assured no North Korean is able to publicly be found out with the belief that some being exists that is greater than the Great Leader without grave repercussions.

Let me translate. "As someone who pretty much doesn't take a position and is either afraid to deny or not faithful enough to believe, or just likes that fringe belief, I can take the high ground and avoid conflict."

And no, I am not speaking of you per say. I am speaking of the agnostics on the "soapbox" who can be every bit as preachy about their lack of reality as the religious and the atheist.

wait...
are you guys all jumping on @Mordhaus for claiming he is an agnostic?
what... his version of atheist-lite rubbing your guys crotch hairs the wrong way?

man,thats fucking rich.

guess even atheists have their gospel to preach.
are you all trying to save @Mordhaus's non-existent soul?

i guess im just trying to understand the motivation here,or why ya'all even care WHAT mordie chooses to define himself as.