Digg

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Agnosticism vs. Atheism

erik-rasmussen.com — Most people that say they are agnostic are really functional atheists, but they are making an epistemological argument to avoid confrontation and accusations of having faith or dogma.

Bury

KaiserArny 47 days ago, made popular 46 days ago

1750 diggs
digg it

892 Comments
Who Dugg It?

CGProphet, on 10/06/2008, -38/+22too true. For the record, not an Athiest :)
- IglooBurner, on 10/06/2008, -7/+11So what would you call an agnosticism who chooses to follow the teachings of Jesus (in a philosophical way)? Would he be considered Religious?
  - sardiskan, on 10/06/2008, -37/+22He would be considered a moron. Because the teachings of Jesus say that he is the son of God and the only way into Heaven. How can you follow that "Just philosophically".
  - ThreeE, on 10/06/2008, -5/+32Heresay only. He probably just said be nice to each other. He was a nice, mortal guy. It is his fan club that is nuts.
  - dezweber, on 10/06/2008, -3/+20@sardiskan - philosophically? You're a dumbass.
  - cdahlkvist, on 10/06/2008, -5/+14A better question is "what do you call someone that is reading all these comments about a non-existent article?".
    
    I get a database error on the site. Ethough you all claim to have read it I have not. Therefore I have seen no proof that this article exists.
  - GeoffGold25, on 10/06/2008, -0/+9but based on the information we do have i would logically assume it does exist. i go on digg all the time and i've seen hundreds, maybe even thousands, of articles on this site. not once has a story made the front page without actually existing AND there is a good logical reason for that as well.
  - Paranormalized, on 10/06/2008, -3/+3"He probably just said be nice to each other"
    
    What basis do you have for saying that?
    
    As much as we might like the idea of Hippie Jesus, considering the era he lived in, the emphasis on God attributed to him is probably accurate.
  - FTLJohnson, on 10/06/2008, -6/+2Site is down, so me roar. Please?
  - RipleyIsDead, on 10/06/2008, -0/+6sardiskan
    It's not that moronic. A lot of people do yoga without buying into the spiritual aspects. Buddhists believe that Jesus was enlightened, not that he was the only son of God. It's just a matter of interpretation.
    
    It's possible to think of Jesus as a political dissident with an overactive imagination, but still get a lot out of his message of peace, charity, tolerance, etc.. Personally, I think it makes a lot more sense than lobbing bombs at people... Unless you manage to wipe out your enemy completely, bombs only lead to escalation.
    
    That doesn't mean I believe in appeasement, but we definitely need to choose our wars more carefully.
  - Zomgondo, on 10/06/2008, -0/+11The word you're looking for is "humanist".
  - ThePenrod, on 10/06/2008, -1/+5Religion doesn't have anything to do with a belief a deity. Most Eastern religions, outside of Hinduism, do not feature gods or goddesses. However, while this example of a person does follow Jesus' teachings, the question that defines religion and the religious is essentially does he practice some form of ritual. Which can be a ritual set of norms (such as the ten commandments), meditation, etc.. Actually, there have been interesting studies on nationalism and academia, on whether or not they can be defined under the umbrella of religion.
  - ThreeE, on 10/06/2008, -0/+4@Paranormalized: I have no basis whatsoever. I am merely giving the benefit of doubt to a guy that died some 2,000 years ago who has a fish-cult stalking his posterity. I have no idea why you think words attributed to him are accurate in any way given the lack of checksums back then...
  - bratterscain, on 10/06/2008, -1/+4I don't believe in a Christian god but that for a Universe to house intelligent beings, as a whole, the Universe could be called intelligent. Just like individual neurons may have an intelligence that also makes up an intelligent being, so too could the Universe be an intelligent entity. So what am I?
  - HonestAbe, on 10/06/2008, -0/+6*Which* teachings of Jesus?
  - Gerz1219, on 10/06/2008, -1/+3What's the point of all these stupid semantic arguments? There doesn't have to be a distinctive label for thinking everyone at church is insane, it's just something some of us feel. My beliefs are based on my conviction that everything said by every member of every organized religion is a scam intended to part fools from their money. I've never felt a need to offer complex arguments and terminology for this plainly obvious fact.
  - rationalist, on 10/06/2008, -1/+51) Anyone who "follows" the alleged "teachings" (as transmitted by writers several generations after the claimed prophet's death) of an apocryphal figure (whether or not an actual Jesus existed, we have no evidence that the miracle-maker portrayed in the New Testament is anything but a fiction draped over an historical figure) is not a rational thinker.
    
    A rational thinker follows the conclusions of his or her own mind, informed by the opinions of others but never blindly "following" anyone.
    
    2) There is no cake.
  - diggduggjoe, on 10/06/2008, -0/+3*Which* teachings of Jesus?--
    
    Like love your neighbor, and I do not mean with your penis?
    Or, turn the other cheek?
    
    I feel those are good ideals, though I do not believe that Jesus ever existed. I do believe that humanity can dig deep at times and come up with virtuous thoughts.
    
    Do I believe that Christians are fools to believe in that myth? Yes. However, I do not think the true believers are going to stab me in the chest and steal my organs. Many are very nice people with a real ability to feel compassion for others.
  - l00pee, on 10/06/2008, -1/+3There is something greater than myself, I believe that. I believe that it has a direct effect on my reality. I dont believe I can influence it via prayer or worship. I dont believe I can truly understand how all things in the universe are interrelated, but I believe they are.
  - crossmr, on 10/06/2008, -0/+3@GeoffGold - Lies! I saw a front page where the story didn't exist. It was a test where the submitter wrote a summary and on the actual page there was no content just him asking people to pretend a story existed to see if people would digg blindly. They did.
  - specialbuddy1, on 10/06/2008, -0/+4Theistic Agnostic
  - Paranormalized, on 10/06/2008, -0/+3ThreeE,
    
    heh, it would be nice to have some kind of error checking built in. I guess the protocols used in the Bible aren't very intelligently designed ;)
  - ThreeE, on 10/07/2008, -0/+1@Paranormalized: true dat.
- DrDragun, on 10/06/2008, -29/+8Disbelieving in God is unscientific and illogical (by the hard rules of logic) though many Athiests consider themselves champions of science and logic. It's nigh impossible to prove a negative you know, and so disbelieving in God is a product of your skeptical feelings or a logical false dichotomy (of institutionalized religeon vs atheism) and not any kind of scientific method.
  
  Believing in most of the traditional religeons is equally illogical and unscientific. I mean there is some flagrant political tuning of the religeous texts and a lot of absurd hocus pocus in the Abrahamic Monotheisms and even the eastern concept of Nirvana by meditation is probably explainable as some sort of psychosomatic hallucination.
  
  Agnosticism ftw. Lots of people think agnosticism means "I think there is some kind of creator spirit but I don't think we know what it is" but really it means "I have no ***** idea if there is a God or not, or what the nature of said God might be"
  - noelsusman, on 10/06/2008, -1/+19"It's nigh impossible to prove a negative you know"
    ORLY!?!?! The Earth does not revolve around the Sun. That's a negative, and I'm fairly certain that it has been proven wrong.
    
    The problem with the theory of God is that it is virtually impossible to disprove. Pretty much any research standards out there will tell you that a theory that is not falsifiable is not a viable theory. Therefore, disbelieving in god is not "unscientific." Atheism is merely a response to Theism and nothing else. The theist says "God exists" and the atheist says "I don't see any evidence for that; therefore, I don't believe you."
  - sekhui, on 10/06/2008, -2/+5just because free will defenses work for you doesn't mean they work for me. and saying that knowledge of god is properly basic is begging the question.
  - Zomgondo, on 10/06/2008, -0/+16There's an invisible dragon in my garage... and if you don't believe you're being unscientific and illogical!
  - mbonnin, on 10/06/2008, -2/+5What is your definition of God? That would probably be the place to start this discussion.
  - slothlovechunk, on 10/06/2008, -0/+12I'm sorry, but the silly logical circle you just ran in could be applied to anything. You can't prove that there aren't tiny invisible super-intelligent beings that live on my feces and are drown everytime I pinch a loaf. In your logical world, it would be illogical not to believe in my feces super-beings.
    
    Any logical argument for the existence of god begs the question, because god is not the logical consequence of any deductive reasoning.
    
    You are wired to believe in god, and you are confusing your innate desire to believe in something bigger than yourself as logic and reason, when in fact it is illogical and irrational.
  - DrDragun, on 10/06/2008, -3/+2@noel: prove a negative in the context of existence, I thought that was clear enough. Athiests and agnostics both claim that they are the "I don't know" camp and I side with agnostics on this issue of semantics. Semantically I consider an athiest to disbelieve in God.
    
    @sekhui: ?
    
    @ Zomgondo: "don't believe" is different from "disbelieve"
    
    @mbonnin: Good question. To specific a definition defeates the purpose of agnosticism I would say. A God may or may not be some sort of creator spirit. It could be some collective spritual consciousness, a consciousness that human consciousness may or may not be able to interact with in life or afterlife. It may or may not produce observable phenomena in the material world.
  - YoctoYotta, on 10/06/2008, -0/+7Richard Dawkins explained it in a way I appreciate, using the title agnostic atheist to describe himself. An agnostic atheist does not claim to KNOW there are no deities, which is most people's issue with the term atheist, but they do accept the possibility of a deity in approximately the same manner that they except the possibility of unicorns or the toothfairy existing. Show some shred of proof of any deity (or unicorn or toothfairy) and I'll jump right in line behind you, believer of any said above.
    
    Unrelated question. Does anyone of faith think that there are atheists that see evidence for a deity but choose not to believe in it out of some sort of principle?
  - rationalist, on 10/06/2008, -0/+4I don't believe in Draguns.
  - hobophobe, on 10/07/2008, -0/+2Disbelieving in all conceptions of god without examination would be unscientific and illogical. To dismiss any particular conception that is logically inconsistent is completely rational.
    
    As others have said, there are two types of agnosticism: strong and weak. The former denies that it is possible to know whether there is a valid conception of god, where the latter simply denies having evidence of any valid conception of god.
- danielsan79, on 10/06/2008, -2/+22By your logic, you should believe in anything no matter how preposterous. This is not how science works. Science is based on evidence. There currently is no evidence for the existence of God.
  
  Any atheist who definitively states there is no God is on the same level as a theist who claims for a fact there is one.
  - GassyTurd, on 10/06/2008, -0/+12Exactly. It is really simple. Theism = belief in god, atheism = without belief in god. Atheism isn't a positive assertion, it is a lack of belief.
    
    The FSM example of a religion is incredibly pertinent. The fact that His Noodliness ruffles so many feathers is evidence of a complete lack of perspective on the part of many theists. RAmen.
  - crocodilexp, on 10/06/2008, -3/+5Not quite... most (if not all) scientific findings are based on induction -- deriving a model that is confirmed by a large number of observations, and not refuted by any consistent observations. Scientific truth is not mathematical/logical truth.
    
    I know of a large number of observations not showing that there is a God, and not of any convincing ones that there is one. By induction, it would be fairly easy to conclude there is no God... and by the same token no Flying Spaghetti Monster -- though to be honest I've seen flying spaghetti a few times, and never Jesus' daddy.
  - FlyingSpaghetti, on 10/06/2008, -0/+9^ You called?
  - jbnumba1, on 10/07/2008, -1/+2"There currently is no evidence for the existence of God."
    
    I believe that this statement is true if you're looking for God to be a "being" and try to think of him as a human who thinks and feels just like us. But what if God is the ultimate order that is seen everywhere around is. Look at sacred geometry, for example, which is found throughout nature. Look at all the different chains, and cycles, and systems in life. I believe this inherent order to our universe either comes from God or IS God.
    
    So if your definition of God is some guy who is waiting for you to slip up so he can banish you to hell for eternity, I think you've got a bit more soul searching to do.
    
    On the other hand, if you fail to see how much order there is all around us, and if you fail to question where this order came from, you too should take part in some deep contemplation.
- oxilite, on 10/06/2008, -3/+18Whats the difference between Agnostic and Apathetic?
  
  I dont know and I dont care.
  - ThisCommentSux, on 10/07/2008, -0/+4Ever hear about the agnostic, dyslexic insomniac?
    
    He stayed up all night wondering if there really is a Dog.
    
    *ba-dum-chhh*
    
    :D
  - dmightx, on 10/07/2008, -1/+2I'm just curious. Is it more likely that you'll be apathetic because you're agnostic?
    
    If you're wondering why I'm curious it is because I am both agnostic and apathetic. Apathy is really a bad curse. I never really thought it was because of the way I think but now that I think about it there may be a connection.
- FreeTalkLIve, on 10/06/2008, -0/+4First Contact with Aliens: October 14, 2008
- paradigmx, on 10/07/2008, -1/+2I consider myself Agnostic, but not how it is typically defined.
  
  I don't know if there is a god, I don't know how many gods, I don't know what, if anything, they do for me, and honestly, I couldn't give 2 flying *****.
  
  that's my Agnosticism in a nutshell
garbagebox, on 10/06/2008, -22/+11Quite informative I'd say.
- DCGUY12, on 10/06/2008, -11/+7I usually tell people "I Don't Know The Bible Well Enough To Be An Atheist." I'm Agnostic. I live in the United States.
  
  I think to be intellectually honest, one must be Agnostic.
  - covertbadger, on 10/06/2008, -5/+16"I think to be intellectually honest, one must be Agnostic."
    
    Couldn't disagree more. An agnostic believes that it's impossible to know if God exists. What evidence is there that we'll never figure it out, one way or the other? It's just as big a leap of faith as theism.
    
    Atheism, on the other hand, is saying "show me the evidence". That's a far more intellectually honest position.
  - tocsy, on 10/06/2008, -4/+5I actually disagree with you covertbadger. For the record, I should say that I disagree with the writer's idea of how atheism should be defined. Disbelief in a god is perfectly reasonable.
    
    Now, on to my point. Agnosticism does not require any faith at all - to me, it is the idea that "I don't know whether or not God exists, so I won't pretend either way."
    
    Of course, I myself go one step farther, and consider myself an apatheist. I don't believe nor disbelieve in a God or gods, and I also don't believe it matters. Finding out if God/s exist will not change anything significant in my life, so I try not to get into discussions about it.
    
    Discussions of the semantics of the word "atheist" are another matter.
    
    EDIT: Oh, and let me just say: I don't agree that agnostics are any more "intellectually honest" than theists or atheists. Belief and intellect are, in my mind, completely separate ideas. Some atheists and agnostics might have intellectual reasons for being so, but I don't think that makes theists less intellectual.
  - Radan, on 10/06/2008, -10/+4@covertbadger:
    
    No, it's right there where you have got completely wrong. The definition of an Atheist is one who denies the pure possibility of a god or similar. An Atheist per se doesn't say "show me the evidence", but "I refuse to believe, no matter what you say".
    
    An Agnostic however, is what you think an Atheist is. An Agnostic neither believes in nor rejects the possibility of a god or spirit of the basis that it's logically impossible to prove that something DOES NOT exist.
    
    The definition of the word "Atheism" from Oxfords dictionary:
    
    "atheism |ˈeɪθɪɪz(ə)m|
    noun
    the theory or belief that God does not exist."
    
    The definition of the word "Agnostic" (they do not have a direct definition of the word "Agnosticism") from Oxfords dictionary:
    
    "agnostic |agˈnɒstɪk|
    noun
    a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."
  - covertbadger, on 10/06/2008, -1/+9"The definition of an Atheist is one who denies the pure possibility of a god or similar."
    
    Wrong. The prefix 'a-' means 'without'. Therefore 'atheism' means 'without belief in God'. This is distinct from 'believes in non-existence of God'. The use of 'a-' means absence, not opposite.
    
    We can all selectively quote dictionaries (by the way, I actually have access to the full Oxford English Dictionary - all 20 volumes of it - and your definition is NOT present as quoted, marking you out as a underhanded liar), but dictionaries are obligated to document modern interpretations and usages as well as original definitions. The word atheism is commonly misunderstood and misused these days - as you are doing - but the meaning of the word is clear in its etymology. It means 'without belief in God' and that's how most atheists use the word. We can hardly be held responsible for the misinterpretation of others.
    
    Your definition of agnostic is also not as it actually appears in the OED, but you have at least got this one right - "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known". This position cannot be reached on the basis of evidence or observation, and is therefore a leap of faith. Saying "show me the proof", which is the default position of atheism, requires far less speculation.
  - schnitzelnoodle, on 10/06/2008, -1/+5Don't rely on a dictionary in forming your philosophies. They don't all agree and aren't always up-to-date.
  - rationalist, on 10/06/2008, -0/+9A classic rhetorical trick (and logical fallacy) is to define your opponent in ways convenient to your premise.
    
    If you are not an atheist, please don't insist that we believe what we do not believe.
    
    Theism is belief in a god or gods (I don't think anyone, particularly theists, debate that definition), atheism is lack of belief in any god or gods.
    
    The opposite of belief is non-belief, it is not a different belief.
    
    I'll respect agnostics enough to let them define themselves (even while disagreeing with them).
  - Radan, on 10/06/2008, -5/+2You do amuse me covertbadger, that you so quickly start taking things personally, and even start pointing out people as liars.
    
    My quotation of the definition of "Atheism" comes directly from the New Oxford American Dictionary, 2nd Edition which is included in Mac OS 10.5, so if you think that something is being misquoted, then please, go ahead and write a letter to Apple who is responsible.
    
    Furthermore, The Swedish National Encyclopaedia currently (6:th October 2008) also defines an atheist as "person som förnekar existensen av en gudom" or directly translated; "person that denies the existence of a [devine power]" (not entirely sure that "devine power" is the correct translation, seeing how "gudom" is an old Swedish word for "god") .
    
    I agree however that there's a distinct lack of a proper term to define people who doesn't believe in a god, but doesn't deny the possibility on a logical basis, such as myself.
  - Quantumsparrow, on 10/06/2008, -1/+6Agreeing with covertbadger here (as usual, ha).
    
    Atheism, to me, is a lack of belief in god in general, not in principle. If Zeus were to part the clouds or appear to me in goose form and such, this would probably sway my beliefs--but, I'm lacking any sort of proof.
    
    Without that proof, I don't believe in any gods. I don't see how people can turn this around into a stringent "BELIEF IN NO GOD" theory, though I imagine some people look at it that way. Most atheists I know see it as "proof for this god? If no, then no belief."
- Stormwern, on 10/06/2008, -9/+2"The null hypothesis states that any extraordinary claim must be assumed to be false and the burden of proof is on the claimant."
  
  The great irony is that the scientists at the LHC are looking for what even they call the "God particle", a mystical thing that is ment to explain the universe. There's no indication there is such a thing, especially since sciense has always seemed to find two new questions with every answer thus far.
  - rationalist, on 10/06/2008, -0/+10How sad.
    
    "God particle" is just an ironic nickname. The Higgs Boson is not a "mystical thing" and it by no meant "is ment [sic] to explain the universe".
    
    The Higgs Boson is an elementary particle hypothesized to exist according to particle physics models that have proven remarkably successful in predicting the existence of other particles.
    
    However, because science (unlike you) is governed by rational methodology, just because something is hypothesized is not sufficient to believe it exists. So, the LHC, among many other things, will be testing for the existence of the Higgs Boson particle.
    
    If found, far from being mystical, divine, or explanatory of all things, it will merely provide additional support to physics models that give us a better understanding of how the universe words.
    
    You really should not do a Palin - talk about things you know nothing about. It exposes you as a fool and angers the moose.
  - rationalist, on 10/06/2008, -0/+7By the way, if the LHC provides experimental evidence that leads to rejection of the existence of the Higgs Boson particle, that will be as valuable to science as evidence confirming its existence.
    
    Science follows the evidence, and, in many cases, more is learned by experiments that refute an hypothesis than those that confirm it.
    
    An hypothesis is a framework for empirical testing; it should not be considered an emotional investment in a particular outcome.
    
    Here's more about the Higgs Boson particle.
    
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson
igorsr, on 10/06/2008, -19/+10great summary--now i know what i am:)
- mahler, on 10/06/2008, -6/+2How do you call somebody who believes that everything that can be invented exists.... therefor God does and doesn't exist depending on the way you look at things. I am an atheist if I explain this concept rationally, but am a christian when using the bible terminology.
  - ohnoihavenoname, on 10/06/2008, -2/+3The problem you're talking about only happens when you make up watered down definitions of "god" like "existence itself" or "some force that might not even be self-aware and might just be physics itself". Otherwise, you're a theist if you believe in a deity. If not, you're an atheist.
  - pernicat, on 10/06/2008, -0/+2I think I would call that a from of post-modernism.
  - ixid, on 10/06/2008, -2/+2I'd call that a load of hogwash. You're religious AND you believe every other absurdity exists.
- feoren, on 10/06/2008, -1/+3Yes, I am also glad that there are internet sites that do my thinking for me so that I can define who I am with as little effort as possible. I mean, *****, I agree with pretty much everything this article says, and it has certainly helps me verbalize my ideas, but if you define yourself by a single article or text (see: the Bible) you're in desperate need of a few hours of quiet introspection.
dezweber, on 10/06/2008, -32/+12The second definition better describes agnosticism and agnosticism is, by definition, not atheism...
- thechr0nic, on 10/06/2008, -15/+3both sentences have pretty much the same meaning, the difference is in symatecs
  
  The difference in the two sentences is who is making the positive claim (see burden of proof)
  - thechr0nic, on 10/06/2008, -1/+3I would also like to point out that 'BOTH' sentences in the original article were for atheism.
    
    I wish people would pay more attention.. no where in here did I try to debate the definition of Agnosticism.
- Otto, on 10/06/2008, -4/+13No, Agnosticism has nothing to do with Atheism. The two are separate questions entirely.
  
  I advise you to look up the definition of "gnosticism" and "theism" and to consider the meaning of the prefix of "a-".
  - dezweber, on 10/06/2008, -7/+5And, I advise you to look up the definition of agnosticism and atheism.
    
    While atheism denies the existence of a god or supreme being, agnosticism neither asserts *nor* denies it.
  - thechr0nic, on 10/06/2008, -6/+2I didn't attempt to imply that agnosticism has anything to do with atheism, if you somehow got that out of my two sentences, you may have been trying to hard to come to that conclusion.
    
    All I said was the difference that author found between the two definitions offered in the article (I hope you read it) was the burden of proof. While both sentences are very similar the meaning does change with the subtle change of order in wording.
    
    It appears that you may have been having issues with reading comprehension.
  - xexx, on 10/06/2008, -2/+7@Otto
    
    atheism disbelieves OR denies.
    
    Rocks are atheist, trees are atheist, if you've never heard of the concept of theism, you're atheist.
    
    Theism is something that must be gained, atheism is a lack of theism.
  - dezweber, on 10/06/2008, -2/+4Of course, the chr0nic, because I'm from MS...no way in hell I could possibly understand complex ideas such as atheism and agnosticism....
  - covertbadger, on 10/06/2008, -3/+8"While atheism denies the existence of a god or supreme being, agnosticism neither asserts *nor* denies it."
    
    I suggest you find a better dictionary. Atheism does NOT deny the existence of God - it simply has the default position that with no proof whatsoever, there is no reason to believe. Agnosticism, on the other hand, is correctly defined as believing that we cannot know whether or not God exists. There's no evidence for such a belief, no scientifically or mathematically rigorous treatment that explains WHY we can't ever know one way or the other.
  - AngelaQ, on 10/06/2008, -1/+8The problem is that theists wrote the dictionary. The definition they have written for the word "atheist" is based on their belief that god exists. "God exists, therefore those who claim not to believe are denying the existence of god."
  - bagboyrebel, on 10/07/2008, -0/+4no, you are completely wrong. A person can be both an atheist and and agnostic (or less commonly, a theist and an agnostic). All it means to be an atheist is that you don't think that there is enough evidence to give the idea of a god or gods any credibility. It does not mean that you deny the possibility.
- inkyblue2, on 10/06/2008, -4/+7"agnosticism is, by definition, not atheism"
  
  wrong. you can simultaneously believe that no god exists *and* believe that the truth of such a belief can never be determined.
  - dezweber, on 10/06/2008, -6/+4*sigh* Twisting the actual definition of agnosticism to prove a point proves nothing at all, inky.
  - inkyblue2, on 10/06/2008, -2/+5excuse me? this entire discussion is over the definitions of atheism and agnosticism, and your statement happens to be factually incorrect. i am an example of a person who is buth happy being called an atheist and happy being called an agnostic. both statements are true of me at the same time.
  - covertbadger, on 10/06/2008, -2/+5"Twisting the actual definition of agnosticism to prove a point proves nothing at all, inky"
    
    No twisting involved. inkyblue's definition of agnosticism is correct - it's yours that is wrong.
  - dezweber, on 10/06/2008, -4/+3@inky - Seems to me that all that's being done here is a poor attempt to twist "atheism" toward political correctness.
    "you can simultaneously believe that no god exists *and* believe that the truth of such a belief can never be determined."
    Where is the latter included in the definition of atheism?
  - Otto, on 10/06/2008, -2/+2@dez: Are you being intentionally dense? You yourself said "agnosticism is, by definition, not atheism". This has been demonstrated to you, multiple times, to be false. WTF is wrong with you?
  - dezweber, on 10/06/2008, -2/+3lol@otto - nothing has been proven except the imposing of an atheist's will upon a concrete definition! The very definition of atheism does not allow for agnosticism! If the definition were, in fact, the second one provided, it actually just might. As it is, it does NOT.
  - dezweber, on 10/06/2008, -2/+3@covert "No twisting involved. inkyblue's definition of agnosticism is correct - it's yours that is wrong."
    What dictionary are you reading?
  - covertbadger, on 10/06/2008, -2/+3@dezweber
    
    "What dictionary are you reading?"
    
    The Oxford English Dictionary. The full, 20-volume one. It defines agnostic like this:
    
    "(æg{sm}n{rfa}st{shti}k) [f. Gr. {alenisacu}{gamma}{nu}{omega}{sigma}{tau}-{omicron}{fsigma} unknowing, unknown, unknowable. One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable."
    
    inkyblue's definition is correct - it means someone that believes the existence of God is unknowable.
  - inkyblue2, on 10/06/2008, -0/+4actually dez, i see your point. i read what you first wrote as "agnosticism is incompatible with atheism." after rereading your comment, i don't think that this is exactly what you meant, so i can see why this thread is going in circles.
    
    it seems like what you were really saying originally was "atheism is a strong position (i believe that there are no gods) and should not be confused with the weaker position (i have no belief in any gods)." in that case, i still disagree. both positions, strong and weak, are properly called atheism. it's confusing and i don't like it, but it's correct. agnosticism is yet a third thing: "i do not think that we can know the truth of any belief in gods or in the lack of gods." it may sound similar to the position of weak atheism, but they are actually distinct.
    
    my original replies were meant to distinguish weak atheism and agnosticism. they are not the same, and not mutually exclusive. atheists can be either agnostic or not agnostic. agnostics can be either atheist or not atheist. none of these combinations are self-contradictory.
    
    in fact, one can even be both atheist and theist, but that's a completely different topic. ;)
  - inkyblue2, on 10/06/2008, -0/+4"The very definition of atheism does not allow for agnosticism!"
    
    this is the position that i was arguing against originally. let's revisit it. an agnostic strong atheist would make the following statement: "i believe that there is no god, but i do not think that the truth or falsehood of this belief can ever be ascertained." do you think that there is a problem with this statement?
  - dezweber, on 10/06/2008, -2/+4inky - you're a great sport and I'm digging you up but it seems you and I are speaking two different languages. I simply feel like we're being expected to reinvent the wheel with the parameters being provided by the OP. Atheism states a disbelief in the existence of a god., ie, I believe that God does not exist. Agnosticism is what neither discounts nor credits the idea of God. I'm speaking of text book, dictionary definition, inky, and the only thing I find issue with is that a lot of people here are insinuating the definition of agnostic into *atheist*.
    
    If Atheism = God does not exist and Agnosticism = No proof that God does exist/No proof that God doesn't exist....then how does Agnosticism = Atheism?
  - paradigmx, on 10/07/2008, -1/+2***** dictionary definition, why should my beliefs or otherwise conform to the definitions in your dictionary, a book written by humans, and thus capable of being just as flawed as humans? I don't know if god exists, i have no interest in finding out either, i just really don't care, maybe he does, maybe he doesn't, won't change ***** all in my life, so why should i care.
    
    as far as I'm concerned, that is Agnosticism, and you can shove your dictionary up your ass, all 20 volumes
  - dezweber, on 10/07/2008, -0/+2@pardigmx:
    
    "***** dictionary definition, why should my beliefs or otherwise conform to the definitions in your dictionary, a book written by humans, and thus capable of being just as flawed as humans?"
    
    What if I decided to change the meaning of "*****" because I don't care for its implications? Does it mean that because I redefine it that it'll have the intended impact on those who are subject to it? I'm afraid not. It will still have those meanings that have long been associated with the word. Now, if you want to start a revolution that changes the definition of atheism to the meaning of agnosticism, I'm all for it. Just be aware that revolution doesn't happen overnight. ;)
  - DekarCorvus, on 10/07/2008, -0/+3@pardigmx:
    
    Not giving a ***** does not make you agnostic. It makes you ignorant. Which in essense lumps you closer to relgious folk then anything. But technically means you are NOT agnostic.
    
    Not giving a ***** does not mean you accept or deny anything. you are merely ignoring all possibilities.
    
    Your right however...choosing a side may not effect your life one way or the other. Then again, you will never know if you walk through life with a blind fold. I don't care what you believe in. i really dont. I merely suggest you ask yourself what makes sense, and take all information available into account before making a choice.
    
    they say knowledge is power....
    then again...they also say ignorance is bliss...
    
    your call i guess....
- Raptor007, on 10/06/2008, -0/+9There are two very separate forms of Agnosticism:
  • Weak Agnosticism: "I just don't know"
  • Strong Agnosticism: "I know that I cannot know"
  
  From my Strong Agnostic point of view, I could see God and still not be convinced; what if he was a hallucination? Or God could be scientifically disproven, but I'd have to ask: what if that's what he wants us to think? Nothing can be proven absolutely.
  - feoren, on 10/06/2008, -1/+2So what? Nothing can be proven absolutely, get over it. Do you go about your daily life thinking "yes, I perceive the traffic light being green, but I cannot be sure, so how can I act when I can't know whether the light is green or red?" ***** it, the light is green and god does not exist. That's the point of this article: you can't prove it absolutely, get over it. You're as sure god doesn't exist as you can possibly be sure about anything.
  - paradigmx, on 10/07/2008, -0/+2technically, from a purely scientific view, how can we prove that all existence isn't just a mass hallucination of your brain, or my brain, maybe you don't exist and i created you to give myself something to do, maybe i created this frail body to give myself perspective, could it be possible that every single scrap of information, every idea, every unimportant detail is merely the construct of a single imagination, absolutely determined to not be alone.
    
    you can't prove that theory wrong, because your theory is just another construct of my imagination designed to try to convince me that i'm not alone.
    
    do I actually believe this? I don't go out of my way to, but I don't deny it as a possibility. just as I don't go out of my way to believe in god, or disbelieve in god, but i don't deny either as a possibility
    
    stop your binary thought pattern for a moment, beliefs aren't 1 or 0, it isn't, you either believe or don't. beliefs are shades of gray, they vary, and change, they aren't written in stone of on paper or on a computer screen. (and Atheism is very much a belief, "I believe god doesn't exist")
    
    P.S. I could care less what you think of my spelling or grammar, so don't think i do
seattlegirluw, on 10/06/2008, -25/+18Sounds about right. But I am in fact agnostic. I believe in something, just nothing that any religion has named yet.
- Chronictrees, on 10/06/2008, -2/+23I believe in something, just nothing. *fixed
- MyNameIsGusto, on 10/06/2008, -6/+2Don't worry; Super Jesus will rear his head into Christianity in due time.
  - TheMidnight, on 10/06/2008, -1/+6Does he ride a motorcycle and carry a jar of honey?
  - arjie, on 10/06/2008, -0/+5Raptors, he rides raptors.
- Jikul, on 10/06/2008, -4/+21You are not agnostic. You are religious, but probably your religion hasn't yet been invented.
  
  Oh, and please... don't try...
- emt1451, on 10/06/2008, -2/+23You aren't agnostic. You are a theist.
- GassyTurd, on 10/06/2008, -2/+2How can you believe in something if you don't know what it is? Is that like loving your children when you've never had sex?
  - emt1451, on 10/08/2008, -1/+2The only thing that matters is that he "believes" in something.
Zippo, on 10/06/2008, -97/+556If you believe God does not exist - you're an atheist.
If you believe the answer is unknown and/or unattainable - that there may or may not a be a god - you're agnostic.

It's not that hard.
- OneLess, on 10/06/2008, -26/+14Except that there are people who think the answer is unattainable and still don't believe that gods exist.
  - purzzzell, on 10/06/2008, -0/+22which is atheism.
  - pp7k, on 10/06/2008, -10/+8That doesn't make any sense. Try this:
    
    The momentum and location of an electron cannot both be known, but I'm pretty sure I know what they are anyway.
  - yacks, on 10/06/2008, -2/+9If you think the answer is unattainable, then you question the existence or non-existence of a god :. you are agnostic or a very unsure atheist.
  - c0mputar, on 10/06/2008, -3/+11The answer IS unattainable. This is science, you cannot attain absolute knowledge. We can know there is no god like we know that we orbit the sun. We do not have absolute knowledge that we orbit the sun, but rather, we have observed our orbit and those observations are consistent with our scientific theories of gravitation. You can have the same type of certainty that there is no god. Sure there are no observable evidences for the inexistence of god(like labs), but the absence of evidence is evidence of absence, a statement proven by conditional probability. We can also inductively say that there is no need for a creator, which we have determined to be true through the theory of evolution, be it solar systems, or animals. We can also deductively say from our current scientific theories, that the idea of a god is scientifically unsound. We can also logically point out that the need for a creator is dismissed when we point out the need for a creator for the creator. There are many more arguments, and all of these give rise to the level of certainty for the argument against a god. You will have no luck finding any arguments that give rise to certainty for a god, and as I pointed out earlier, a level of certainty constitutes "knowledge". You CAN know there is no god, it's just not absolute. Nothing can be absolute except for math and logic because the laws for those two fields remain constant, while the said cannot be said for observable science, simply because we cannot go back in time or be 100% certain our observing isn't faulty...
  - noumuon, on 10/06/2008, -4/+3"but the absence of evidence is evidence of absence, a statement proven by conditional probability."
    
    that's a poor conclusion. i'm not saying there is evidence of god's existence, but how can you possibly think that just because we haven't found evidence that evidence does not exist? the greek's had no scientific evidence that matter could be broken up into small, indivisible units, yet they believed in it. were you to use your rationalization during the time of the ancient greeks, because there was no evidence, matter couldn't be broken up to an indivisible unit. this seems like a trivial example, but for a very good reason. the evidence was all around them. the evidence for our deepest theories has always existed. we just didn't know where to look, how to look, and often what to even look for.
    
    "We can also inductively say that there is no need for a creator, which we have determined to be true through the theory of evolution, be it solar systems, or animals."
    
    and you could very well be wrong. induction is a very, very poor means to determine things about reality. it's why induction has been replaced with popper's epistemological views in the scientific realm (assuming anyone ever inductively formed a scientific theory to begin with). here's an example: there's a chicken who gets fed by a farmer. every day the farmer comes at a certain time and gives him plenty of food. over a little bit of time, by induction, the chicken forms a theory that says "the farmer always feeds the chicken at 6am" or something along those lines. every day that the farmer feeds the chicken, it confirms the chicken's theory. one day the farmer comes, and the chicken is expecting food. the farmer however, pulls out an axe and cleaves the chicken's head off.
    
    this is a prime example of why science isn't induction based. we don't blindly form theories simply based off of observations. it's when observations contradict prevailing theories that we act to formulate and replace the old ones. and coincidentally, the large majority of new theories based off of contradicting observations are not radically different. the old theories often tend just to be approximations of the new ones. essentially, induction is a poor way to determine anything about the existence of anything.
    
    "We can also deductively say from our current scientific theories, that the idea of a god is scientifically unsound."
    
    that's just false. it's very easy to demonstrate something like the christian god is scientifically unsound from a fundamentalist viewpoint. a deist's idea of god is in no was deductively unsound.
    
    "You will have no luck finding any arguments that give rise to certainty for a god, and as I pointed out earlier, a level of certainty constitutes "knowledge"."
    
    i don't know where to begin with that. any degree of uncertainty, besides absolute uncertainty, is also a degree of certainty.
    
    "Nothing can be absolute except for math and logic because the laws for those two fields remain constant"
    
    just need to nitpick there as well. the field of mathematics is anything but absolute. the subject matter of mathematics is absolute, but the practice of mathematics is not. Gödel demonstrated this nicely. logic falls into the same category, but slightly different. by the rules of logic, the conclusions you can arrive at are absolute in regards to the rules themselves, but they cannot ascertain absolute truths about all things that are valid logically (nor can the statements have any valid claim about reality either).
    
    i agree with you that the answer is unattainable, but to apply science to something that may exist outside of observable reality is foolish (and wrong). you can justifiably say that anything claimed to exist outside of observable reality doesn't exist, and you can even justifiably say that anything without presently found evidence doesn't exist. neither, though, have any basis in scientific reasoning.
  - c0mputar, on 10/06/2008, -1/+2Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Evidence isn't absolute, it's just a level of certainty. Your example about the greek believing in super small pieces is somewhat absurd in this context, because they were in fact unable to cut small pieces back then and so derived a conclusion that there exists a unit of size that cannot be split, not too bad of a conclusion based on the evidence that they were unable to cut small pieces.
    
    Inductive reasoning may be poor, but hey, at least our side of the argument can use it. Doesn't work that way for those who who arguing for god's existence. Therefore I think the point of using it is still valid. I agree that science shouldn't be inductively sought, and if I made that connection then forgive me, but I'm pretty sure my mentioning of science was strictly for the "absolute knowledge" bit, while the rest of the post was formulating levels of certainty, be it scientifically valid or just good ole certainty.
    
    Why did you say my deductive bit was false and then agree to my conclusion?
    
    Your next point about the uncertainty I will hand to you, you're quite right that any uncertainty for a no-god argument, COULD be certainty for a god argument. I was just trying to focus on god arguments that give rise to certainty, and not just the uncertainty to what we know. However, I think this uncertainty of one side equalling the certainty of the other is a huge problem, and if you disagree, then why do you disagree with the absence of evidence is evidence of absence? You can't have it both ways.
    
    Nitpick me all you want about math and absolute knowledge, I'm just repeating things I've heard over the years that made sense, and if they are false then good on those that explain why.
    
    Unfortunately I disagree with you in that god could exist outside of science. Science is the study of nature, if god is outside of nature or science, then you simply acknowledged that he cannot be given any level of certainty for it's existence. If we could observe, or derive a theory which supported a god, then that's science, otherwise, it's faith. A big point of this whole god debate is that religious people think it's logical for there to be a god, and if they retreat as far back as saying that god exists outside of science, nature, or logic, then they have effectively ended the argument. Lastly, your last sentence confused me, was that something I said, I think you're getting mixed up with the absence of evidence statement, give it some thought, it doesn't exert proof that god is absent.
  - noumuon, on 10/07/2008, -2/+2"Why did you say my deductive bit was false and then agree to my conclusion?"
    your deductive bit is false. science does not have a say on the subject of god, be it sound or unsound. as you say, science is the study of nature, god - by a general definition of a personal god (pantheistic varieties are sort of excluded) - exists outside of nature. therefore god exists outside of science. i certainly would say it is, however, logical to believe in god. there have even been logical formulations for the existence of a god. Gödel's for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontolo ... there have been criticisms of it, and there have been reformulations, but placing god into a logical foundation isn't out of the realm of tractability. from what i've observed, it tends to generally be atheists who claim that god is not logical. it doesn't help the matter that most fundamentalists are so logically inept to the point of almost justifying the atheist's beliefs.
    
    i'd like to clarify my beliefs as people tend to digg me down because they think i'm promoting religion or some such nonsense. i support the rational principles of atheists choosing not to believe in a god due the lack of evidence. i do not believe in a personal god. i personally ascribe to a pantheist perspective more so than any other. i do dislike atheists who tend to think that their view is the only rational view to take or that the idea of god is illogical. these people, for the most part, don't even know what they're even lashing out against. they seem to have a vendetta against christianity or whatever religion they were forced into. i'm not pleading to authority or any such manner, but when someone who had such a profound impact on logic and the very foundations of mathematics draws an ontological proof (and one he found to be satisfactory) about the existence of god, it's not something you can brush off lightly. not saying any of the above can be ascribed to you c0mputar (you're one of the more rational people i've seen in these articles), as i mostly just like to argue. :)
  - c0mputar, on 10/07/2008, -2/+1I do not know why I am being dugg up and your dugg down. I'll admit I do not know everything, and a great deal of any misunderstanding on my part is quite possibly my lack of understanding definitions. We all have our different understandings of words, and as we move into deism and atheism, the different ideas behind them have been so confused between rational people that it's hard to say what is true and what isn't. I think it's much easier to be strictly anti-theist, for to be anti-anything-but-yourself is assuming everyone is following your own understanding of each word. I found after your last reply is that neither of us are convincingly hitting eachother because of this lack of compatibility. Although I am at ease when people prescribe to anything other then religion, for at that point, as long as they don't define a set of beliefs, then I don't care... because it's too difficult to get precise. I do admit your understanding in some areas is quite convincingly, and I'm glad you showed me that G proof, I'll have to look into it more deeply later.
- sephiroth965, on 10/06/2008, -55/+219The idea that atheism is the belief that there absolutely isn't a god is a common misconception. I'm an atheist. I have never claimed to KNOW that god doesn't exist, I simply don't believe there is a god in the same exact way I don't believe there are leprechauns. There is no proof of either one. I'll concede that technically there COULD be a completely invisible imperceptible man in the sky, but I won't believe there is until someone can show me some empirical evidence. That's what atheism is. Aside from that, it's impossible to disprove the existence of anything(including leprechauns, dragons, or god).
  - scott12087, on 10/06/2008, -63/+162You basically just gave the definition of an agnostic, not an atheist....
  - kocurejd, on 10/06/2008, -3/+64Also, leprechauns do exist. They live in Imaginationland.
  - MacParrot, on 10/06/2008, -4/+25Always after me Lucky Charms!
  - cinloykko, on 10/06/2008, -11/+15i agree with you. 'm atheist too. i would believe in god if someone proved it on a "without a doubt" basis to me but until then there's nothing "godly" about an imaginary, all mighty, and BLAH BLAH BLAH "being". there are so many misconceptions of what atheism is/should be.
  - billbugger, on 10/06/2008, -1/+7Leprechauns are greedy and children are thieves.
  - zorpscorp, on 10/06/2008, -6/+52No self-respecting atheist would claim to have a way to prove God doesn't exist.
    
    They simply don't believe there is one,
    
    "According to definition" I'm BOTH an atheist AND agnostic (though I like to claim Apatheism). Since there's obviously no way to prove God doesn't exist, there's no reason for me to believe in a god. It's like asking if you're agnostic or atheist about invisible magical unicorns.
    
    I guess you could have agnostic deists, ones that acknowledge there's no way to know if there's a god, but believe in one anyways.
  - UberNick, on 10/06/2008, -14/+6"it's impossible to disprove the existence of anything"
    Wrong. One of many ways is to prove its existence inherently causes a contradiction. See, math has use after all.
  - drlha, on 10/06/2008, -16/+10The OED says that an atheist is "One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God."
    
    So basically, you're an agnostic.
  - yacks, on 10/06/2008, -17/+9You my friend are an agnostic which is what scott12087 stated..
    
    There's 2 ways of being agnostic
    
    a) You can think that God doesn't exist because there is no proof to support one existing
    
    b) you can think that God can exist but there is no proof to support Him existing.
    
    Atheist believe strictly that there is no God as much as Christians believe that Jesus rose from the dead to save them from their sins.. With Atheism and Christianity, there is no in betweens, You either believe or you don't.
    
    I guess you can be an agnostic atheist or agnostic christian but either way, you are agnostic.
  - autorock, on 10/06/2008, -5/+24No, scott12087, sephiroth965 is right to call himself an atheist by his definition (and is pretty much word for word on the same plane as Richard Dawkins!). There is a difference between knowledge and belief. An atheist can lack definitive knowledge of whether or not there is a god while simultaneously believing that there is not.
  - plainOldFool, on 10/06/2008, -1/+3@kocurejd .... suck my balls! (dugg)
  - kocurejd, on 10/06/2008, -1/+2@plainOldFool ... touche.
  - autorock, on 10/06/2008, -4/+12@yacks, atheism need not be in absolutes. Atheists require evidence before knowing there is no god. Since that evidence will probably never exist, the best you can say is that god is extremely improbable. This stance is NOT agnosticism by definition. An agnostic would say that they don't know if there is a god, and deem belief irrelevant for lack of definitive evidence, one way or the other. An atheist takes existing evidence for the lack of god and maintains god does not exist because enough of a case can be built for there not being a god, even without the smoking gun of "there definitely is no god because of X".
  - 0zymandias, on 10/06/2008, -1/+24What a shame. You're spot on - yet no one is digging you up. To understand the words look at the roots:
    
    Theism: having belief in god or gods.
    Atheism: not having belief in god or gods.
    
    Gnosticism: (Greek: γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge): When used with theism, is used to refer to one who has absolute knowledge that a god, or gods exist. A gnostic atheist (though I know of none) would, by contrast, claim to have knowledge that no gods exist.
    Agnosticism: Not claiming knowledge that gods exist.
    
    I'd argue that we are all agnostic in that no one has 'knowledge' of gods and yet differ in our beliefs.
  - kocurejd, on 10/06/2008, -4/+4No one has "knowledge" that God exists. That's why it's called "faith."
  - DivisibleByZero, on 10/06/2008, -3/+5I think there's an ambiguity in the word atheism though. (I'm not a latin scholar, but...) it's broken into three parts:
    a - opposite of or lack of
    theos - god
    ism - belief/following
    
    so, how does the order of operations work? is this a(theism), the lack of believe in god. or athe(ism), the belief in the lack of god?
  - aeoo, on 10/06/2008, -6/+5"The idea that atheism is the belief that there absolutely isn't a god is a common misconception."
    
    You're wrong. There are genuine atheists out there. For example, any died-in-the-wool Buddhist is an atheist, because Buddhism has logical proofs of the non-existence of God (and anything else for that matter). There can be an appearance of what looks and seems to be God, however, but not an actual God. This is real atheism. It is a doctrinal stance. It's not just something like "barring additional evidence...". It's not like that. It's a firm, unshakable conviction that comes together with many reasonable arguments to support it. I won't even mention the fact that in many Buddhist sutras God appears as a character who is either ridiculed for arrogance and foolishness or has to show up before Buddha, bow down, and receive wisdom from Buddha, like any other student.
  - RobotBuddha, on 10/06/2008, -1/+4@kocurejd
    
    I used to really enjoy talking about religion, and I have never encountered a Christian who felt they had no evidence of God's existence, and practiced only on faith. One or two on the internet, but I'd be very surprised if Christians operating like that were even 5% of the general population of christiandom.
  - c0mputar, on 10/06/2008, -4/+4You cannot prove anything in science. You can only increase certainty. I'm going to paste something I already wrote earlier. You can have the same type of certainty that there is no god, as you do with the earth orbiting the sun. Sure there are no observable evidences for the inexistence of god(like labs and telescopes), but the absence of evidence is evidence of absence, a statement proven by conditional probability. We can also inductively say that there is no need for a creator, which we have determined to be true through the theory of evolution, be it solar systems, or animals. We can also deductively say from our current scientific theories, that the idea of a god is scientifically unsound. We can also logically point out that the need for a creator is dismissed when we point out the need for a creator for the creator. There are many more arguments, and all of these give rise to the level of certainty for the argument against a god. You will have no luck finding any arguments that give rise to certainty for a god, and as I pointed out earlier, a level of certainty constitutes "knowledge". You CAN know there is no god, it's just not absolute. Nothing can be absolute except for math and logic because the laws for those two fields remain constant, while the said cannot be said for observable science, simply because we cannot go back in time or be 100% certain our observing isn't faulty...
  - pixelate, on 10/06/2008, -5/+2For the self-proclaimed atheists who think that there could actually be a god, but they are waiting for proof:
    
    What would you call someone who doesn't believe in a god under any circumstances?
    
    (Welcome to the agnostic club.)
    
    Also, claiming true Buddhism is atheism is ridiculous. They subscribe to a predefined world view that has no evidentiary basis. It may be very loosely defined and more groovy than some other predefined world views, but it still has dogmatic tenets.
  - kocurejd, on 10/06/2008, -3/+1@RobotBuddha
    
    I'm sorry if my comment was taken the wrong way. I am a Christian, and I certainly see evidence of God's existence in my day-to-day life. I see the evidence of God's existence BECAUSE of my faith and my belief, whereas someone who doesn't have this same faith/belief probably won't see these things as "evidence." My point, however, was that there is no absolute empirical "knowledge" of God's existence. I was trying to make a distinction between the terms "knowledge" and "belief" and/or "faith." Basically, I was saying that you can't point to a single occurrence and know that it is 100% attributable to God. No one can.
    
    For a Biblical example, take Noah. When God told him to build the ark, he had just enough faith to do it. But don't you think that there was at least some part of him that was in doubt? I mean, a massive 40-day rainstorm in the middle of the desert? Noah was human; there's no way he was 100% absolutely positive that it was going to rain. And that's what makes it faith rather than knowledge.
  - AngelaQ, on 10/06/2008, -2/+1Actually, if there's proof, then it's not 'belief'.
  - xs650, on 10/06/2008, -5/+2You are an empirical agnostic.
    
    An agnostic by the original definition of agnostic believes that whether god exists or not is unknowable.
    
    An empirical agnostic believes that the existence of a god is knowable, but not necessarily that anyone actually knows.
  - ithkuil, on 10/07/2008, -1/+2Here are three reasons people choose to identify with agnosticism even when they are almost certain God doesn't exist:
    1) lack of reasoning ability and/or intellectual apathy
    2) desire to fit in with the other apathetic or religious rabble
    3) hedging (often connected to #1) based on threats of eternal damnation for non-believers
  - bigstinky, on 10/07/2008, -0/+4I liked the part about leprechauns.
  - BigManOnCampus, on 10/07/2008, -4/+2I don't think you know what Atheism is.
    If you don't believe you can know whether or not god exists, you're an agnostic.
    If you believe that god does not exist, you're an atheist.
    
    It's a stupid argument anyway, and frankly another example of how human nature emphasizes division over practical harmony.
    
    Atheists simply believe that theism is completely and utterly incorrect. This means no supernatural being, no supernatural realm of existence, and no demands on humanity by any supernatural anything. That's fine.
    
    Agnostics simply don't want to jump into believing anything, and would rather see proof of anything they're asked to accept. Frankly the Agnostic way of looking at things is more rational and more "scientific" as it accepts ignorance first and proof before conclusion.
- thechr0nic, on 10/06/2008, -8/+39you missed the point of this article; Further more, the definition for atheism you chose, implies a positive assertion that god does not exist, putting the burden of proof on you.
  
  The author suggests in the article that the better definition would read: The atheist 'does not believe' that god exists.
  - tocsy, on 10/06/2008, -4/+4I would argue that there is no burden of proof, since belief relies on faith, and therefore CANNOT be proven. Similarly, someone who believes God does not exist does not need proof to believe this, as it is a BELIEF.
    
    But what would I know, I'm just agnostic.
  - carve, on 10/06/2008, -0/+4belief does not have to rely on faith- it can also rely on evidence or lack thereof. Do you believe in gravity? How about dragons?
  - mithrasinvictus, on 10/06/2008, -1/+1So how would you call someone that is convinced god does not exist?
  - carve, on 10/06/2008, -0/+3That is a good question. What would you call a person with the absolute positive belief that dragons don't exist anywhere in the universe? Presumptuous, but probably right.
  - aoou4444, on 10/07/2008, -2/+1Right, completely miss the point of the article by reiterating the common belief that the writer is trying to argue against and get nearly 400 diggs.
    
    Has it become so bad that this many people don't read the article?
- theodenking, on 10/06/2008, -3/+32No, it's not hard. But that doesn't change the fact that that's not how most people understand either word. Bertrand Russell summed it up in 1949, and nothing has changed:
  
  “As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.”
- eatasandwich, on 10/06/2008, -6/+38This is an example of digg/social news distorting the actual article b/c people don't read properly.
  
  You can be an atheist AND be agnostic. If someone claims that they don't know if god exists they can still have no belief in god. In fact, by claiming you're agnostic and that you don't know if there is a god there is a good chance you have no belief in god. Therefore you can describe yourself as an agnostic and atheist.
  
  The dugg guy at the top of this thread is demonstrating ignorance - the misconception that the article is attempting to put right.
  - PapaBoojum, on 10/06/2008, -1/+6(ignore this reply - i replied to the wrong post )
  - McSwankypants, on 10/06/2008, -0/+1Agnostic with Atheistic tendencies?
  - 180andback, on 10/06/2008, -1/+3I mean, really. Everyone is agnostic. Anyone who claims to have absolute knowledge whether or not god exists is either lying or crazy. Christian? Agnostic. Muslim? Agnostic. Atheist? Agnostic. As an atheist, I take it a step further, and say, "Yeah, probably not. I doubt it. I don't think so. Do you have proof? Oh, you don't. Okay. Then no."
- Rudegar, on 10/06/2008, -5/+1irrelevant too
- agaiziunas, on 10/06/2008, -1/+20I argue the fact we are all POLYatheists (there are thousands of gods we don't believe in), and therefore are 99.9% similar in all our beliefs. But as predicated in human history, the 0.01% difference will be enough to drive an imaginary wedge between us.
- ExRe, on 10/06/2008, -16/+3Atheism seems just as silly as any religion IMO.
  
  Any of the gods that are told in legends from any group could certainly exist, just because the information recorded/known about them is terrible and sometimes contradictive doesn't mean that the being itself does not exist. There also is the possibility that some god exists which is completely unlike any of the legends we have of gods from different religions.
  
  To be an athiest you have to have the belief that no god exists, and yet it is certainly possible that one or multiple ones do, they do not have to be limited to the knowledge human kind has.
  - Ligeia, on 10/06/2008, -2/+7The leap of faith required for theism is much larger than the one required for atheism.
  - JoEb0x, on 10/06/2008, -1/+4@ ExRe, atheism is not a religion. I don't see friendly atheists getting absolutely ***** rich as ***** with tax exemptions out the rear end - do you? Didn't think so.
    
    There are way too many kids on digg making serious mistakes about this definition, pedantic or not:
    
    Atheism is a lack of belief in the supernatural, or God.
    
    1. Some consider themselves atheists because they solely believe that there is no God.
    
    2. Others believe themselves to be atheist, merely because they do not believe in the magic powers of the modern religions. These persons should consider themselves agnostics; no matter how many religious beliefs they 'lack' faith in: if they do not outright reject the notion of a God, they are not atheist.
    
    An agnostic admits that they do not know if there is a God.
    
    1. Agnostics cannot be atheists. An atheist claims that there is no God, this is obviously a totally different philosophy than an agnostic's.
    
    2. An agnostic can also be considered a person who 'believes' that we cannot know if there is a God - according to many dictionaries. I think this is false, and these people need to find themselves a new name. Agnosticism is a philosophy of doubt and claiming that we 'cannot' know of a God strips the foundation of agnostic thought to nothing.
    
    Whoever thinks I am incorrect in my statements, who is over 16 years old, I'm open to suggestions and gaining more knowledge in these topics. Also, I'd like to know if others agree with me. I don't consider my word to be absolute nor would I challenge others to change their definitions.
  - autorock, on 10/06/2008, -0/+0Please do a little research into "Russell's Teapot". Atheism is not "faith" in reverse. It is based on probability, in turn based on evidence.
    
    "The burden of proof (does not lie) upon the skeptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions." In other words, it is certainly possible that god(s) exists, however it is extremely improbable...and it's up to you to prove it, not for the rest of us to disprove.
  - covertbadger, on 10/06/2008, -0/+5"To be an athiest you have to have the belief that no god exists"
    
    Wrong, wrong, and more wrong. To be an atheist you must lack belief in these deities - that is NOT the same as actively believing in their non-existence.
  - Sumtin2Say, on 10/06/2008, -1/+0Do you believe in God?
  - TheGreenHelmet, on 10/06/2008, -1/+0The only "God" I believe exists is God Shammgod (Google it), who played basketball for Providence University in the early 90s. I saw him play and I can look up his stats.
    
    As for other "gods," you'll have to define what you mean by the word "god" before you can ask if whether or not there's a belief in its existence.
  - Sumtin2Say, on 10/06/2008, -1/+0@green helmet
    
    a diety that created the earth.
  - Sumtin2Say, on 10/07/2008, -1/+0@ whoever dugg down my question and clarification of that question:
    
    How do you digg down a question? WOW.
- BoonTobias, on 10/06/2008, -9/+1another big point:
  
  it DOESN'T matter as long as you're not subjecting yourself to any of the moronic middle eastern religions that are raping the minds of people all over the world
  - Ligeia, on 10/06/2008, -0/+2The monotheistic religions are all equally impractical; the difference is that the middle East tends to be more fundamental in its belief of its religions, whereas in North America we recognize the fallacies for what they are and, thus, adjust the belief system to co-ordinate with what is more socially acceptable.
- 955701, on 10/06/2008, -2/+7it's actually more difficult than that. A good read is Atheism: The case against God. I forget the chapter, but there is a good explanation of why someone who does not believe in gods and someone who isn't certain that gods exist are actually one in the same.
- skipdog172, on 10/06/2008, -2/+7Clearly you did not even read the article. I hate how a comment such as this can get so many diggs. Most of the ones who digg you certainly did not read the article.
- RevChris, on 10/06/2008, -4/+11it doesn't really matter , God will continue to not exsist with or without our input.
- ghostcat, on 10/06/2008, -9/+2Atheism is just a belief in the opposite direction. It's saying "I don't know if a god exists, but to me the probability is that he doesn't, so I'm going to believe that." Agnostics are 50-50 and don't take any stand on the issue. Here's believer's scale:
  (-10)---------(-1)-(0)-(1)------------(10)
  -10 is an atheist who is fundamental in his belief that god doesn't exist. Any evidence to the contrary would not shake his faith in this.
  -1 is an atheist who doesn't know for sure if there is a god, but leans toward "no"
  0 is an agnostic. He sees equal probability.
  1 is a religious person who doesn't know if there is a god, but leans toward "yes"
  10 is a fundamentally religious person, and no amount of evidence could ever shake his faith.
  - 180andback, on 10/06/2008, -0/+3People tend to be atheists because of the lack of evidence for god, right? I think your scale is full of crap. You give me evidence god exists, and I'll rethink my position. Faith is not involved in atheism. Atheism is the absence of faith.
  - DforSpiD, on 10/06/2008, -0/+1No... there is no such thing as a fundamental atheist. Atheists will not believe in god because they have no reason to believe, if there was evidence to the contrary, as in real indisputable evidence, then there would be no atheists.
    However, disproving a scientific theory is not the same as proving god is real.
    Even if evolution were to be proven false (extremely unlikely, but it is technically possible) that wouldn't prove that god did it... it would only prove that evolution didn't...
    This is not the same as disbelieving in real evidence (if there was any) of some supernatural being.
    
    Simply put, I am an atheist, with absolutely no leanings toward religion, I do not believe that god exists at all, nor do I believe that I will ever be proven, putting me as close to a -10 on your scale as anyone else, yet I could still be swayed by evidence if it were presented to me.
  - ctscradle08, on 10/31/2008, -0/+0The existence of a supernatural being is unknowable. Whether it be that you believe it DOES or DOES NOT exist. Both are an not provable. And yes, it is equally impossible to disprove the existence of fairies and leprechauns, but in the end this is meaningless because this will never influence the way I live my life, in the same way that god doesn't
- Gzero, on 10/06/2008, -6/+2There exists a distinction for a reason.
  
  Looking at this from a scientific view, I cannot accept a description of a god without proof. However, there does not exist an explanation of why matter exists in the first place. My description of myself as agnostic is based on the idea that, using whatever logic we have, there must have been something that created the universe but that something can never be proven.
  - 180andback, on 10/06/2008, -0/+2When you say 'why', don't you mean 'how'? And why can the thing that created the universe, if indeed something did create the universe, never be proven? That's a presupposition. Everyone is agnostic in that we don't currently know for sure whether or not there is a god. I am an atheist because I don't believe in god, not because I believe there is no god. I believe there is no god, as I believe there are no unicorns, but that does not make me an atheist. My atheism is my lack of faith, simply put.
- EarlOfLade, on 10/06/2008, -3/+7You wrote "God" but you really meant "god" didn't you?
  
  And to all you Christians out there, are you agnostic or atheistic when it comes to Odin, Thor, Apollo, Zeus, Shiva, Ra etc?
- schnitzelnoodle, on 10/06/2008, -4/+2Where's the proof that "humans" exist?
  
  None of us are 100% the same, but we all call ourselves, for all practical purposes, humans.
  
  As the article's author mentioned, there are cases where we are perfectly comfortable with 99.999%, 'for all practical purposes' acceptance of something. But we don't necessarily have to be absolutely certain.
  
  And if you understand the scientific method and null hypothesis, I'm not sure where your ***** contention lies.
- MetalliTooL, on 10/06/2008, -6/+6Yeah, but agnostics are usually not really on the fence. They are still in the "non believer" category. So for all intents and purposes, they can just call themselves atheists.
- carve, on 10/06/2008, -2/+3@ zippo- you said...
  "If you believe God does not exist - you're an atheist.
  If you believe the answer is unknown and/or unattainable - that there may or may not a be a god - you're agnostic."
  
  It is that easy, but you've answered two separate questions.
  
  You can lack a belief in god, and believe that in that sliver of a chance a god existed knowledge of it is unknowable anyway= agnostic atheist
  You can believe in a god while simultaneously believing that knowing anything about that god is impossible= agnostic thiest (which is pretty much what deists are)
  
  I, on the other hand, am an atheist but NOT an agnostic. Particular pieces of evidence would convince me to switch teams.
  - nybble41, on 10/07/2008, -1/+1"Particular pieces of evidence would convince me to switch teams."
    
    Would it really? What evidence do you suppose would be required to support the claims that a being is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent? I can't imagine anything observable by an individual human being or the species as a whole that could possibly support such extravagant claims. Something super-human, sure, that's easy enough to demonstrate. But a god? That's the sort of claim that can only be taken on blind faith, or not at all.
  - carve, on 10/07/2008, -0/+1Sure...the clouds could part, it'd hover down, tell me my life story past, present, and future, resurrect my golden retriever, and turn my salad into marijuana (water to wine has been done). I'd find that really convincing!
- andresthor, on 10/06/2008, -2/+3WHOOOSH!
  
  You just missed the point of the whole article, congratulations!
- idiotech, on 10/06/2008, -3/+1Basically, what the point of the article is:
  
  Atheists should not state the BELIEVE god isn't there. Because that implies they have reason(s) that have led them to this belief.
  
  Atheists, are more clearly defined by the fact that they have NO reason to believe that god exists.
  
  There is a difference between using your reasoning to lead you to a conclusion (eg looking at emissions, in hopes of understanding the causes of global warming), and having no reason to believe something (e.g. rocks secretly have teeth and eat food.) Stating that you have used your reasoning, and you study rocks for the possibility of secret teeth, indicates you think that it just MIGHT be possible for rocks to have teeth.
  - nybble41, on 10/07/2008, -1/+1Strictly speaking, you're right. However, if the other side is willing to say that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and Zeus don't exist, then I see no problem with atheists using the exact same language to indicate a well-founded disbelief in the existence of god(s) based on the conspicuous absence of supporting evidence.
    
    If formal proof were required to make any statement of fact, we couldn't even say "gravity exists", or "there are no monsters under the bed".
- mrshare, on 10/06/2008, -7/+5WRONG. Atheists do not make the assertion that "God does not exist." That is impossible. They simply see a lack of positive evidence that he does. There is a huge difference between these two.
- IntangibleGrasp, on 10/06/2008, -3/+3I don't believe a god exists, and I do not claim to know with certainty. Therefore, I am an *agnostic atheist*. I often abbreviate this to atheist since I see the fact that we cannot know with certainty as fairly obvious.
  
  By saying you are an agnostic, with no claim of belief on the existence of a god, then you aren't really described by either atheist or theist, which is fine. However, when you try to tell ME that "You're really just agnostic," you've crossed the line, because I attribute some level of statistical belief to the existence of a god (a very small one).
  
  You are making the assumption that we cannot have any evidence for or against this hypothesis that at least one god exists, you seemingly attribute an arbitrary 50% chance to each scenario (either a god exists or he doesn't, each equally likely). Having seen no evidence for this improbable hypothesis, my belief in it is equally improbable. Admittedly, (my) belief is a subjective measure, however, this doesn't mean we should stop at saying "we can never tell one way or another."
- phroztbyt3, on 10/07/2008, -2/+4Agreed completely.
  
  True atheism comes actually from such scholars as Karl Marx. he believed in true atheism. That there is no God, and when you pray to him, you really are praying to yourself. In order to look beyond yourself, you believe you do... when in fact you look deeper within yourself.
  
  Someone who is agnostic is just saying "honestly, I don't know." Which in my opinion is acceptable, they haven't really really thought about it yet, or tried to find anything to help them in their decision.
  
  And no.. I am not atheist. I am Buddhist (and a philosophy of religion minor). Very open to new or used ideas, as long as they have a good backbone.
  
  Further note...This article is off. The writer is mixing apples and oranges. Also, since when is 1/3 a logical number?... its been called an illogical number that is used to divide things irrationally in many cases. That is why logically there is no such thing as a 1/3 of 10. So to take something logical (as in 1) and put it in the same scenario as .999 is simply ridiculous. Its the same argument as to try to prove God's existence through science, both are totally independent.
- thegrantman, on 10/07/2008, -0/+3After reading this I have a God damned headache.
  And none of you will believe me.
- KJSatz, on 10/07/2008, -1/+3No. Theism is belief in god(s). Atheism is absence of belief in god(s). Antitheism is disbelief in god(s).
  - Neosapience, on 10/07/2008, -1/+0a·the·ism
    –noun
    1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
    2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
    
    Please learn to read the dictionary. Agnosticism is the absence of belief, not atheism.
  - KJSatz, on 10/07/2008, -0/+1I think that discussions of the meanings of words can get a little deeper than dictionary.com, don't you?
- spongman, on 10/07/2008, -1/+2Penn Gillette answers this one quite well, in his bathrobe no less:
  
  http://crackle.com/c/Penn_Says/Penn_Says_Agnostic_ ...
- spongman, on 10/07/2008, -1/+2part 2:
  
  http://crackle.com/c/Penn_Says/Penn_Says_Agnostic_ ...
- ZenMojo, on 10/07/2008, -0/+2"One of the things that surprises most calculus students is that 0.99999… = 1. How can that be? Well, the simple proof is that, if you agree that 1/3 = 0.33333…, which it does, then what do you get if you multiply both sides of the equation by 3?"
  
  Cute, but not quite. 0.999999999... = 1 because 0.999999999... != 0.9999999991. At some point you have to round up for the number to be comprehensible, and as soon as you round up at some INFINITE decimal point in the number you get 1, so the number is functionally one. Philosophy is concerned with these little details, and it is by making a philosophical argument while trying to tell people not to think about it philosophically that allows the blogger to pull a bit of gentle subterfuge.
  
  Accent on "subterfuge," as that is what his argument is. He starts by convincing you not to try and define something properly (philosophy? Ew, it's soooo complicated.../sarcasm), and not to use any agreed definitions. And then to prevent you from using the very field in which such things are discussed. In other words, it's a cup game while he hides his belief system.
- dmightx, on 10/07/2008, -1/+2Now why is this person buried over 80 times. Can we get an explanation from somebody?
- Kral, on 10/07/2008, -0/+3Why did you guys dig the parent up? It's the exact misconception the article is talking about. Most of you are actually atheists, of the "weak atheism" type, also known as "agnostic atheism".
- mahadiga, on 10/07/2008, -0/+2Quite simple:
  God and religion are distinct.
- Neosapience, on 10/07/2008, -0/+2If someone says "I don't believe in GOD", that's a really general statement that blankets every idea of what god might be. I could simply say that the all of existence IS god. What then atheists? Saying that you don't BELIEVE in something you can't understand makes you look just as foolish as any theist. I believe in possibilities, in new experiences and in the idea that the whole of existence is far more complex than anyone can possibly fathom.
  - schnitzelnoodle, on 10/07/2008, -0/+0Is it more complex than YOU can possibly fathom? If so, how can you fathom it enough to argue that all of existence IS god? Isn't that a claim to some sort of knowledge? So, you're contradicting yourself.
    
    The more we take away, the more generalized your claims become. Ad infinitum. There is no end to this.
    
    There's also no point. There's no real benefit or concrete anything that you gain from your view that I couldn't gain from my own.
solstice21, on 10/06/2008, -31/+155I'm an agnostic, and I'm certain of my agnosticism.
Because I'm willing to admit that it's impossible for us as mere humans to ever know if or the nature of a supernatural existence.
I can test gravity by dropping a pen. No, I'm not certain that the pen will always fall to the floor, but there is no test I can perform to further my understanding of God, only speculation.

It's called humility. If God does exist I'm not going to be the one with the arrogance to tell God that I know what God is all about because I thought about it a whole lot. I will humbly admit that despite all my study and meditation, I was never able to actually know in the same way that I know that a pen will fall to the ground.
- curtisfglenn, on 10/06/2008, -16/+26Are you agnostic about Santa Claus then?
  - themuffinman, on 10/06/2008, -4/+5Sure, why not?
  - codshash, on 10/06/2008, -6/+8But do you act as if Santa exists? If not, you don't act as if you believe in Santa. In other words you don't believe in Santa(a-Santaism) until the positive is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
  - biz20, on 10/06/2008, -3/+2im saying though, he aint gimme no presents, ever.
  - Icyfenix, on 10/06/2008, -0/+6Santa is crap. I want every ounce of credit for getting the presents for my kids.
    Look kids! Mommy got a credit increase!
  - FlyingSpaghetti, on 10/06/2008, -0/+1Of course Santa exists. Who else would leave all those presents under my tree?
    
    /s
  - solstice21, on 10/06/2008, -3/+2I believe an individual named "Santa Claus" who gives presents to children during a particular time of year is within the realm of possibilities.
    So yes, I am agnostic about Santa Claus.
  - slabdigger, on 10/07/2008, -0/+4I guarantee you, that agnostics are really atheists with regard to 99.9% of all the gods out there. Xenu? Chronos? Mithros? Ba'al? How about the countless other gods that are no longer in human history? Are you agnostic about all of these gods? This kind of thins out your doubt. Why not be open to the theory of magic? Or curses?
  - nybble41, on 10/07/2008, -1/+1@solstice21 - But do you believe that the existence and nonexistence of Santa Clause are equally likely? To my understanding, agnosticism disavows *all* knowledge, including a balance of probabilities.
    
    To borrow from information theory, a boolean proposition ("Does God/Santa Clause exist?") has an entropy between zero and one, the former being absolute certainty (yes or no) and the latter being absolute uncertainty (either answer equally likely). Agnosticism corresponds to an entropy of one. A gnostic theist or atheist would claim an entropy of exactly zero. However, I think most individuals would argue for an entropy much less than one but still greater than zero; confidence, but not certainty.
    
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_entropy
  - solstice21, on 10/07/2008, -0/+1Slabdigger and Nybble41;
    I do not "know" these entities to exist. If they do exist I am without ability to identify to what extent or in what context.
    My own "beliefs" based on my own experience, lead me to conclude that it is more probable that none of them "exist" in a way that can be perceived by me using my senses. It is more suitable for me to live as though assuming they do not exist because their existence or non-existence has ultimately proved to be irrelevant to me.
    I do not consider myself an atheist because I do not deny that there is a very real possibility that one or more of these entities do exist and are either beyond my capacity to understand or have purposefully chosen to remain hidden from me. I also live knowing that I may be a brain in a jar with a demon orchestrating all of what I perceive to be reality as some kind of sick entertainment. Thank you Descartes.
    I also do not consider myself to be an atheist because I would personally prefer that such spiritual things, such as God(ess)(es/s), magic, prayer, karma, etc do exist because I like to *hope* that there is some meaning or reason or logic to all that I perceive. I do think it is more likely that this is not the case, but its a nice idea.
    However, this is a hope, a wish, if you will, and not something I could consider to be hard fact, because this hard fact is unknowable to me.
  - dudefaceguyman, on 10/07/2008, -0/+1Sure, I believe Santa Clause exists in the 'spirit' of everyone during the holidays. Watch Imagionation Land from southpark they put it kinda nicely.
    
    As for god, that's *completely* different for me. I don't really mean god as some dude with a white beard that lives up in the clouds and has a 'divine plan'. I mean god as whatever supernatural being/thing/whatever was responsible for creating everything and the fact that at least now you can't approve or disapprove afterlife. It has NOTHING to do with whatever some Christian/Catholic ridiculous beliefs about god. It's about the question of what's responsible for the creation of everything?
    
    Not an idea of god that some crackpot ***** on mushrooms probably came up with.
    
    Hell we could die and find that god is a child molesting taco who just created the universe so he can molest every childs soul that dies...and maybe Pedobear is the 'Jesus' role. Hah
- UberNick, on 10/06/2008, -3/+14I think you're looking at it wrong. What "doesn't" the pen do? It doesn't stay put; it doesn't float. So you can make knowledgeable claims about its current and future state of being.
  
  What doesn't "God" do? Doesn't talk to you, doesn't alter the physical world, doesn't offer any information discernible from physically observed information, doesn't help people act morally. In fact, does absolutely nothing of measurable or observable impact in the world. That's plenty to infer in a concrete, empirical sense that he/she/it doesn't exist at all.
  
  And if someone disagrees with one of the "doesn't" claims, then great! It must mean they have something provable they can use to demonstrate otherwise. As a skeptic, I'd be very open and excited to see that.
  - solstice21, on 10/06/2008, -5/+2The pen doesn't float and God doesn't directly talk to me.
    But I will not deny that these things are possible in a realm of infinite possibilities
  - RicktheBrick, on 10/07/2008, -4/+1There is a purpose to life. It would be lost if God would prove his existence to humans. Humans must be uncertain to some degree on the existence of God because otherwise they would lose all interest in their lives. People who are 100% certain of the existence of God would lose their fear of death. If one knew for certain that a much better and longer live was waiting for them after death than one would welcome that death.
- hnilsen, on 10/06/2008, -3/+17I don't believe in a God or any such existance. But if a God came to me, and showed me all of his powers, what heaven and hell is and all that - I'd apologize and change my mind.
  
  But I'm willing to bet my left arm that's not going to happen. And I'm an atheist, not an agnostic. And I don't feel arrogant at all.
  - Raptor007, on 10/06/2008, -7/+6Even if a God came and showed me all his powers, how would I know I'm really seeing it? What if it's just a hallucination, or I'm in some sort of reality simulator (The Matrix?), or I'm just asleep and dreaming? So it still proves nothing.
    
    On the other hand, maybe you don't believe in God because he doesn't want you to.
  - Raptor007, on 10/06/2008, -2/+5Aw, damnit, I'm probably getting buried for The Matrix. Guys, I only meant the first movie!
  - JargonScott, on 10/06/2008, -5/+1Think about this. Instead of coming directly to you and doing the stated tricks, he comes to the dude next to you. Would you believe it? You watched it happen still. If so, say instead of you seeing it happen to the dude it just happened like 15 minutes prior to your showing up. Would you still believe it? If so then the time aspect isn't what's important, so what if it were 2000-ish years ago?
    
    That's essentially the Bible. A collection of stories written by or about people that "were there", and are telling you about it.
  - Frumbler, on 10/06/2008, -0/+4@JargonScott,
    
    What am I supposed to think then about all the conflicting stories from 2000-3000 years ago, Zeus, Thor, Jehovah, the Hindu gods....
    
    I'd have to come to the conclusion the human race was a little crazy back then, just like the dude it happened to 15 minutes before I showed up.
- diggit83, on 10/06/2008, -4/+15If there were a "God" of some sort he/she/IT would have shown its self to the world by now and we would be well aware of what it wanted or expected from us. What the hell is the point in being an all powerful creator of life if you dont exercise any of the perks?
  
  Another thing, I, consider myself an ANTItheist. Meaning I hate the idea of religion in the 21st century and I think the world would be better off without it.
  - Raptor007, on 10/06/2008, -1/+2Now, I'm not saying there is a God, but suppose there is. Just because God exists does not mean God needs us to know about him. Perhaps he doesn't want us to know about him now because the current religious theories about him are all wrong? If I were a god, I don't think I'd want to announce myself with so much of the world assuming I'm their Christian god.
    
    I'm an anti-theist too (by your definition) but that doesn't really specify my beliefs on God's existence.
  - diggit83, on 10/06/2008, -1/+2The problem with your theory is you are thinking like a weak willed human. We are talking about something that is all powerful. Powerful means he doesn't care wtf you or any human thinks, because, well he/she made you for his/her own entertainment.
    
    So, to clarify my position. By definition I am an atheist, because of the aforementioned hypothesis on why a god couldn't exist.
  - burdalane, on 10/06/2008, -1/+2Even if a god exists, how do you know he is really all-powerful and has the ability to make himself known? Creating the universe is different from being a part of it.
  - davepascoe, on 10/07/2008, -1/+1@Raptor
    
    "I'm an anti-theist too (by your definition) but that doesn't really specify my beliefs on God's existence."
    
    yes it does. this 'behind the scenes God' you suggest would be DEISM not THEISM.
    
    theism is not just about something 'bigger' or 'unknown', it's about specific claims i.e. not just that a God exists, but, for example, that he exists and hates gays.
- rodrigo74, on 10/06/2008, -2/+29I understand your point, but at the same time I find it funny: why people get so philosophical, humble and deferential when talking about the existence (or non-existence) of god, while they have no philosophical problems whatsoever declaring that fairies and unicorns don't exist either? Why the special treatment when it comes to the Abrahamic god?
  
  You make the exact same question about fairies and god ("does it exist?") and for one you get a quick "no" or at worst an one-liner, and the other you get a fracking epistemological treaty..weird. It smells like intellectual cowardice, or an unnecessary need to be "religiously correct"
  - RobotBuddha, on 10/06/2008, -2/+3The main reason for the special treatment, personally, is that most people don't believe their loved ones are alive and living with with unicorns. Most do, however, believe that their dead friends and family are alive and well with the entity I would have just said isn't real. It's arguing their family is dead. Right or wrong, it's uncomfortable.
  - JackOCat, on 10/06/2008, -3/+1Impossible as far as you know right now... or: you are certain that it is impossible for all humans everywhere in every time?
  - MCCULLAH, on 10/06/2008, -1/+1just because your agnostic, doesnt mean you don't think the thoughts of christianity and all religion is primitive and crazy
  - solstice21, on 10/06/2008, -2/+1Fairies and unicorns are also in what I would place in the realm of "possible in a realm of infinite possibilities"
    My personal beliefs as to what is probable and what is possible do not have to directly overlap, mind you.
  - rodrigo74, on 10/07/2008, -0/+2@RobotBuddha: that's exactly what I mea

Agnosticism vs. Atheism