Atheist vs Agnostic

I do consider myself agnostic with regard to the existence of God in the sense of Huxley's original definition (that is I do not know or claim to knwo that there is no God). However since "agnostic" is often taken as meaning someone who takes no position at all on the question I do not usually describe myself as an agnostic.

quote:

---

Would it be true to say that you have not yet come to know of the existence of God?

---

I believe that that would be misleading since it implies that there is a God that I could come to know.

You've got the definitions of weak and strong athesim quite wrong.Weak atheists do NOT take the position that God does not exist. THey simply do not accept the view that God does exist.Strong atheists DO accept the position that God does not exist but need not do so dogmatically.The posiiton you describe as weak atheism is in fact a form of strogn atheism - and it is no less reasonable than the weak atheist position. Arguably more so given that we should assign a low a priori proabibility to the existence of God and the sheer weakness of the case for any particular God existing.

There is one important point here - the term "weak atheist" has only one definition. Agnostic has several - including the belief that it is in principle impossible to know that a God does or does not exist. As I have already suggested other definitions of agnostic are compatible with strong atheism (as it is possible to believe something without knowing that it is true).On the other hand one respectable source in my library (The Penguin Dictionary of Religions[/B]) explicitly lists agnosticism as a form of atheism.

quote:

---

I'm not asking atheists to accept anything. I was interested in fostering a discussion about the distinction between atheists and agnostics and was curious as to why atheists, (or ‘strong atheists’, or ‘semi-permanent’ atheists or whatever----insert a label that best describes the subject. Please excuse me, I insert this lengthy parenthesis lest I be accused of defining words and mapping territory), close the door on the possibility of the existence of God

---

Many atheists - even strong atheists - don't.

quote:

---

Yet at the same time, atheists criticize religious folk for closing the door on the possibility that evolution occurred

---

So basically you think that there is no difference between a personal opinion and an extremely well supported scientific conclusion ?

Your reply does not address the point. Rejecting evolution is quite different from rejecting belief in God sicne there is vastly more evidence for evolution.

No, your reply did not address the point or even explain what you really thought.

You ask if there are any strong atheists who agree with me. Well I'm a strong atheist and I agree with me.The definition of strong atheism is believing that there is no God. Belief does not require certainty nor does it have to be dogmatic.

You asked why it was right for your hypothetical atheist to rule out the existence of God while also saying that it was wrong for (some) religious people to rule out evolution.Of course evolution is so well supported that only the most fanatical creationists will rule it our all together ("evolution within kinds" is OK even with a lot of YECs). But you couldn't say that the existence of God is equally well supported and your hypothetical atheist could have good reasons for ruling out what he (or she) thinks of as "God". So your argument - as well as relying on some hypothetical atheist - nobody here has stood up and admitted that they fit the bill - is comparing apples and oranges.