Summations Only

I agree, and generally I sit on your side of the fence. Some words however have multiple meanings and though your definition and usage of the word is correct as an adjective the common and also correct usage can be as a noun. Creationists also often use old or obscure definitions for words and attempt to insert them into a scientific discussion. Hyroglyphx would appear to argue for its use as a noun and in my experience this is by far the most common usage when discussing worldviews/ religions. You wish to use the word as an adjective but self professed agnostics may disagree with your usage. IE: You could get a few agnostics typing replies on their black keyboards and hitting reply on their cordless mice ... but who am I but a loudmouthed asshole poking fun at your Red Car example.

Lets be honest though, whats your opinion of the tooth fairy? Is there a certain number of believers required in an un-evidenced entity to graduate from dishonest atheism to honest agnosticism? Or are you open minded about all the crap that comes down the pipe? I used to think that way also, talk to some of the resident atheists here on the forum however. I am nearly positive that you wont find one that fits how you are defining them. I don't believe I have met a "strong atheist" only "weak atheists" who lump all the gods into the same category; along with the tooth fairy. The only difference between atheism and agnosticism that I have found on this forum is that the atheists see no reason to be open minded about every fictional character that man has ever come up with. Its not a flaw to state that your virtually positive that Loki didn't flatten my tire or switch off my alarm clock. Why do you have to keep repeating all the time that its possible but probably not true? Pin an atheist into a corner however and they will admit that it could be possible but likely won't loose much sleep over it. You don't understand how atheists (generally) think and your likely pointing fingers at a stereotype.

Let me be the first.I am a strong atheist. I am not the type that says there is no proof so I don't believe. I know there are no gods. In order for there to be gods, or the supernatural all reality would have to be different from what it is. There is no magic, there is no paranormal, there is no supernatural. If there were then reality would not be as we know it. For there to be any of these things the basic laws of our universe would have to change. They can't change, because if they did reality itself would change. I hate when people lump groups together and attribute things like this. This statement is not true. Be very careful using statements that members of a group think or will all act the same way. I would not agree that there is a possibility. There is NO possibility.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

I'm an example:
I don't believe in God. I'm an atheist. Why don't I believe in God?
There has been absolutely no evidence for a god, a fairy, a genie, magical elves, etc and so I dismiss them until such evidence is provided.I don't believe it is possible to prove that God doesn't exist and I hold to the fact that it is possible a god exists, and should enough evidence come forth to convince me, then I will change my mind. I'm agnostic.I don't claim enough knowledge to "know" that there is no god because knowledge cannot prove a negative of that type. I do claim not to believe. How would you define me?Edited by Perdition, : No reason given.

They did, just last Tuesday. Too true, but how did you miss all my attempts to not lump groups together? "talk to some" "here on the forum" "I am nearly positive" "I don't believe I have met" "that I have found on this forum" "generally"

quote:

---

Pin some atheists on this forum and I am nearly positive that the ones I have met will admit generally...

---

Long winded but corrected to fit my experience before I met you.

quote:

---

Pin some atheists on this forum and I am nearly positive that the ones I have met will admit generally...

---

Much better and a lot more accurate. I know quite a few atheist with my viewpoint. Now that would be a belief in the supernatural wouldn't it.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

No, but one takes a neutral position while the other doesn't. Too many people assume that agnostics are basically atheists, but that is not some arbitrary rule that all of them adhere to. I know I don't. While it may be very likely that most agnostics lean more towards atheism than theism, that does not negate that it in effect fosters neutrality on the subject. Precisely my point! These terms strong or weak are just senseless distractions from the obvious. It's almost insulting to affix strong or weak to it as if it were going to somehow make it better. If you're an atheist, then be an atheist. If you're a theist, then be a theist. If you're an agnostic... Just keep fighting the good fight. You don't need to feel pressured to come to such a grand decision in haste. Shit, life is mysterious enough with the even the most basic of epistemological mysteries. No need to open up Pandora's Box. Let that open on its own. Be honest and inquisitive, I say. Perhaps... But I can only speak about personal experience as a way to measure something just like everyone else, really... And I sure as shit didn't assign the stereotype. People do that to themselves without the least bit of help from me. So... *shrug* Take that to heart or with a grain of salt. It is what is.

---

"The problem with Socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money." --Margaret Thatcher--

NO possiblilty? Are you sure? How about this one:ALL of it exists, it just doesn't interact, and has absolutely NO influence on this universe. Wouldn't that be a possibility?I'll admnit, there would be absolutely no discernable difference between this and it not existing, but still.

---

I hunt for the truth

Huntard writes:

quote:

---

I'll admnit, there would be absolutely no discernable difference between this and it not existing, but still.

---

But what? A difference that makes no difference is no difference.This is the argument behind Cartesian Doubt. Suppose you're just a brain in a vat experiencing an incredibly sophisticated simulation of "reality." Everything you've ever experienced doesn't actually exist but is simply artificial excitations of your neurons.If the simulation is absolutely perfect in every respect such that there is absolutely no hope in any way, shape, or form of you ever finding out about this (no exceptions ever until the end of time and even beyond), then how is that any different from actual reality?A difference that makes no difference is no difference.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

I am not sure I understand you. I believe that God exists, yet freely admit that I do not know. I fail to understand how you can claim to know. First of all, show support for the idea that "reality would be different". IF God exists, God exists regardless of what people believe.(or claim to prove) IF God does not exist, God does not exist despite what people believe.(or claim to prove) Thats quite a broad topic. Just where is "all reality" recorded or documented?
Its as simple as that.Edited by Phat, : added jabberwocky

I completely agree. But the point is that Theo said there was absolutely NO possibility. There is. It's a completely useless possibilty, and there really isn't any point about speculating about it, but it's a possibility nonetheless.

---

I hunt for the truth

quote:

---

IF God exists, God exists regardless of what people believe.(or claim to prove) IF God does not exist, God does not exist despite what people believe.(or claim to prove)

---

So what's your point? The same can be said about anything unknown to an individual.A supreme being tinkering with nature and humanity doesn't exist outside of human imagination and the various mediums that hold those thoughts.According to human writings, gods have made their presence known through the ages and very physically in some cases. They still do make themselves known, but now they are classified as fiction, scifi, or religion.As mankind learned more about the world around him, his gods had to move further beyond what man knows to the unknown of the imagination. In there gods can do anything we envision and abide by the boundaries we set for them.Our gods are made in our imagination in our image.One can pretend all they want, but at some point one has to deal with reality. When they do, some/many/few put their god on the shelf until they need to stroll or hide in their imagination. Some just play the game to be part of the group.When it rains we see rain. When a supreme being shows up, we will see a supreme being.

I also consider myself a strong atheist and believe exactly as you do. Well said.

Personally, I see agnosticism as more of a method than a stance. As stated earlier, there are such things as agnostic (a)theists. Saying this, I don't see how someone could be just an agnostic. If you don't feel one way or another, then you are an agnostic athiest. If you want to make a leap of faith, then you are an agnostic deist. If you think you know it all one way or another, then you are a gnostic (a)theist. Finally, if you don't believe in religion personally, but acknowledge that there may be a God(s), then you are an agnostic deist.That's just my take on things. Thoughts?

---

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
- Stephen Roberts

​

I'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in
- Dan Foutes

​

"In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has widely been considered as a bad move."
- Douglas Adams

you have two definitions for agnostic deist. Did you mean that or was one supposed to be something else?