You.. didn't really read much of what anybody said, did you?

The basic argument isn't against the people, but at this point has basically boiled down to what the definitions of "Atheism" and "Agnosticism" are. Nobody is pissed off @Mordhaus / @VoodooV for what they believe in,

Well, it's not like atheism is a choice, it's a genetic trait.

It's known as "intelligence".

Agnosticism is the belief that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown. Wikipedia

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10] Wikipedia

It is only since the rise of New Atheism that we have the opinion that Agnosticism is not a separate belief from Theism/Atheism. As far as Agnostic Atheism/Theism, those are still considered a sub-division of Agnosticism, not Atheism or Theism respectively.

As far as myself, I would say I lean toward Agnostic Theism, simply because I hope that there is a greater design to the Universe other than random chance.

@Mordhaus

The terms atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive.

Theism/Atheism addresses belief
Gnostic/Agnostic addresses knowledge

If someone asks if you are an atheist and you answer "no, I am agnostic" you are not answering the question because it was not about knowledge of god's existence it was about belief in god's existence.

The god exists.

If you believe that statement is true you are a theist.
If you do not believe (disbelieve) that statement is true you are an atheist.


Just because you "don't know" or think it's possible "there could be something like a supreme being" does not change the fact that right now you are not convinced that a god exists.

Gnosticism:
(in the general sense being discussed here) addresses the issue of what one knows or claims to know. For any claim regarding the existence of a god, a gnostic is an individual who claims knowledge that the assertion is true and an agnostic (literally, "one who lacks knowledge") is someone who makes no such claim.


So if you claim to be agnostic the question if you believe in the existence of god is still unanswered.

Are you...

An agnostic atheist
does not believe any god exists, but doesn't claim to know that no god exists

or

An agnostic theist
believes a god exists, but doesn't claim to know that this belief is true


*BTW I borrowed heavily from this page http://wiki.ironchariots.org/?title=Atheist_vs._agnostic

There's atheism, anti-theism, agnosticism, theism, gnosticism.

Then there's assholeism...that's where Stanhope lives.

Actually,, atheism is the lack of theism, not the opposite. A good analogy was posted above, baldness is not the opposite of hair, or even the opposition of hair, it is simply the lack of hair. A semantic difference to be sure, but an important one if you wish to truly understand the terms.
edit: perhaps a better analogy would be 'the opposite of matter is not empty space, it's anti-matter'. Atheism is being empty of theism, not necessarily against it.

Atheism is a spectrum, though. At one end you have people who outright deny the existence of gods and, at the other, perhaps you have people who are completely unaware of the god concept and have never given it a thought. These people are still 'without gods'.

Agnosticism, however, is not much of a spectrum. The agnostic believes that the truth about existence of deities is unknown and/or unknowable. It is not a position of uncertainty; it is a definitive claim about the limits of human knowledge/understanding.

They are not mutually exclusive as they are addressing different questions. You can simultaneously be an atheist or theist as well as a gnostic or agnostic. Fun fact: Most existing Christian churches are officially agnostic; gnosticism is considered blasphemous. Most Gnostic Churches were declared heretical and destroyed centuries ago.

I'm not confusing anything. Atheism is, by definition, the opposite of Theism. If you profess that you have some belief that there may be 'something', but you want scientific proof, then you have placed yourself in the definition of Agnostic. You can identify yourself as Atheist, which is what many do since Dawkins released 'The God Delusion', because he chose to try and force/shame/delude Agnostics into just calling themselves Atheists.

As far as a strawman, would you say that Dawkins is an Atheist? If you say yes, then perhaps you would like to know that on page 70 of the aforementioned book [Dawkins] views permanent agnosticism as "fence-sitting, intellectual cowardice". I imply nothing, while you personally may not feel this way, a well recognized New Atheist felt strongly enough to put it into print in his own book.

In any case, I understand your opinion. My opinion simply differs, I feel that you are a Theist if you believe deeply that there is 'something' of a god out there, an Agnostic if you are unsure and would like proof, or an Atheist if you feel that there is no such thing. You can certainly lump me with Atheism based on my commented beliefs, but I will lump you with Agnosticism based on yours.

I'm sorry, I used to think that way too, but it's just not so.

You're confusing atheism with anti-theism. You're stuck in a "if you're not with me, you must be against me" binary mentality. The lack of (or being without by your definition) something is not equivalent to being opposed to something. Bald is not a hair color

As for your argument about "New Atheists," you're just creating a strawman. Never claimed anything about agnostics, especially nothing as derogatory as you seem to be implying.

It can be argued that everyone is agnostic since no one knows with certainty of the existence of a creator. People claim to have faith, but by definition, that's believing without proof so that doesn't hold up as "knowing" People also claim to "know" but their evidence never holds up beyond human conceit.

That's why I mentioned Grimm in my last post, we were talking about this subject on another sift, the mis-communication of what Atheism is. There's that tired theist claim that Atheists hate god. well you can't hate something if you don't have evidence that it exists.

An atheist is not in opposition to a creator, it's just that there is no proof and every claim out there so far can pretty much be summed up as human conceit. An atheist would probably be excited to find proof as it would expand on our understanding and thus, improve science even more.

If anyone is confused about the difference between Atheism and Agnosticism, it is certainly not me or the widely accepted delineation between the two. By your statements, you are by far more of an agnostic than an atheist. The literal meaning of Atheism is without gods, you do not believe in them. If, however, you believe there 'could' be something like a supreme being but are skeptical due to lack of hard evidence, you are an Agnostic.

Proponents of the New Atheism outlook, such as yourself and Richard Dawkins, tend to look at Agnostics as fence-sitting cowards that are unwilling to join the movement to openly criticize Theists at every turn. In reality, we are simply a middle of the road group who want to remain open and, mostly, congenial to both sides of a bitter debate. If you choose to think that Agnostics are in fact Atheists, that is certainly your prerogative, but most regular Atheists and Agnostics will disagree with you.

The Wise One: Maybe some otters do need to believe in something. Who knows, maybe just believing in God...makes God exist.

Sea Otters: Kill the Wise One! KILL THE WISE ONE!

Hopefully we can get back on topic after another ching-jacking

@Grimm, Mordhaus is a textbook example of the misunderstanding of atheism I was talking about earlier.

Atheism is the calling of bullshit on theist claims. Atheism is not "there are no gods" I'm sure there are some atheists who do believe that, but that's not atheism, that's anti-theism.

If you can prove a creator exists, an atheist will believe it. IF you can prove it, then it's no longer a myth, it's a fact and that creator becomes part of the realm of science. You really gotta remember that a creator is separate from religion. There could be a creator, but a religion can still be wrong or immoral.

There is actual nuance to this stuff. But people, in general, don't give a shit for nuance. Binary thinking at it's worst. That was the mistake @brycewi19 made earlier. Stanhope not wishing someone well is *not* the same thing as him wishing them ill

If you think religion is putting out a bunch of false claims that haven't been proven, then you're an atheist. If you're agnostic, then you're an atheist. Even if you think there could be a creator, just that you don't think any of the religions are right..that's still atheism. You're not saying no gods exist, you're just calling bullshit on their claims because they haven't proved them.

It's not left vs right, it's not the fallacious "both sides suck" idea the ching-jacker was trying to sell earlier.

Back when i thought Atheism was "there are positively no gods" I didn't didn't agree with that either.

Why is it that this guy gets hung by his toes. But when Alec Baldwin calls someone a "fucking cocksucking faggot" and a long list of other unrelated homophobic slurs, no one bats an eye.

All reality TV shows have been doctored to make for more interesting TV since its inception with The Real World, the so-called point of this whole video is mute. Anyone with half a brain cell knows this video isn't about Duck Dynasty being fake, or about the discrimination of opressed people.

Alec Baldwin is making millions doing far worse on a monthly basis. Remember when he called his 12 year old daughter and verbal and mentally abused her? Or when he called a reporter a fat queen. Or another incident where he threathens to shove his foot up someone's faggot ass. No one tries to ruin his career over any of the horrible disgusting things Alec has said or done, but this bearded redneck happens to quote bible scriptures. That's what all this fabricated hate is really all about.

Most of the 'outraged' people don't give a shit about gay people, they just want to see the religious wingnuts get taken down a peg so they can wave their fedora emblazoned atheism flag. They won't come right out and say it because it would make them selfish assholes riding the coat-tails of people who are actually being abused and discriminated against. No I'm not religious, but I can smell bullshit a mile away, and this whole thing reeks. Were's this assholes outrage when it comes to Alec? Ohh He dosen't really give a shit about gay rights, not a peep when he can't pin a christian to the wall; he just cares about religious people doing stupid things.

Don't subjegate the real issue with your atheism agenda, it makes you look disgusting and reprehensible. That attitude is exactly why no one takes our ideology seriously; You think your doing some greater good, but your means are selfish to the very core.

"I don't know" is not a belief.

it's all part of the murky definition of atheism that seems to be in flux.

at one point Atheism used to be defined as a definitive claim that no gods existed. This was the primary reason I considered myself to not be an atheist. Because you can't know (presently) There could be a creator, just that a creator probably isn't an petty ass from the stone ages which is how most religions portray a creator.

However I would identify with with how the Atheist Experience defines Atheism: to be the rejection of theistic claims. They specifically say numerous times that they do not claim that no god exists, just that they call bullshit on the claims of all current man-made religions because of lack of evidence.

Which is a viewpoint I can agree with.

It's something I've kinda kept track of for a while, over the years I google the definition of Atheism and many times in the past, it's been defined implying the positive belief that there are no creator(s) which I can't agree with..again, because you can't prove a negative in this situation.

it does seem to be slowly changing though, more and more definitions have changed to match the Atheist Experience's definition.

David Silverman, (while I agree with him on a lot of things) is a douchebag IMO. I'm sorry, you're just not going to win people over with douchey billboards antagonizing theists.

I support freedom of religion, I agree with our founders though that gov't has to be secular. You can vote based on your religious beliefs. but a person elected into public office has to compartmentalize themselves from their religious beliefs and be secular. You govern everyone, not just the followers of your religion. Kick religion out of gov't, but as long as religion doesn't infringe on other peoples' rights, then they can do whatever they want.

The thought of Hitchens dead makes you sad? The whole idea of atheism should thoroughly depress you, then.

Lawrence Krauss isn't one of the Four Horsemen of New Atheism. Daniel Dennett is the other.