The dictionary I had when I was 12 said, “a person that believes it is impossible to know whether or not there is a God.”
I probably read that definition 50 times and thought about it for weeks. I decided it was stupid. An agnostic is a person that admits that he or she does not know. To say it is impossible is presumptuous about the intelligence and knowledge of billions of other people and for the rest of eternity. There were fewer than 4 billion people on the planet back then.
psik
I’d go as far as saying that Atheists do not think there is evidence of God existing.
Atheists share one characteristic with theists: lots of different ones have lots of different ideas. Declaring that “atheists” share any particular uniform idea is simply wrong.
Beyond that, your use of the verb “believe” is not particularly relevant or helpful. It is quite possible to fail to believe something without actively believing its opposite. There are, indeed, some atheists who have an active belief that there is no god, but many others simply fail to believe that there is a god. Insisting that they all “believe” there is no god weakens your argument for everyone who recognizes that that is not an accurate statement.
As a few have mentioned your atheist definition needs some work.
Would someone who doesn’t collect stamps define themselves as a non-stamp collector?
There is: Apatheism. 
I don’t know whether or not there is a god. To some folks’ eyes, that means I’m an agnostic. To me, it means I am an atheist. I just don’t believe.
Some like to make the distinction that there is knowledge, and there is belief, so there can be agnostic atheists, and gnostic atheists, and agnostic theists, and so on. I don’t run with that. I think that presupposes a standard of knowledge that is just inappropriate. I don’t know how to change my breaks. Sure, I have evidence that people change brakes, but that’s based on a lot of circumstance. So what. It’s true I probably have more evidence of automobile brake pads than I do of electrons, but if I were to adopt the “agnostic” point of view, they’d all be equivalent. Hell, I even disagree with Descartes about proofs of mental processes. If you want to look at proof like that, I can’t prove anything.
But that’s kind of a worthless definition of proof. I can’t do anything with it. It doesn’t go anywhere. “Back to rough ground,” as Wittgenstein might say.
Brakes exist. Mind exists. God doesn’t. Maybe I’m wrong, but the possibility of being incorrect does not compel me to abandon all knowledge. I have some standards of knowledge. Some things fit, others don’t. I may be wrong. I might always be wrong. In some very, very perverse sense, I might even be wrong about everything, including what “I” mean, what “might” means, and what “everything” is. None of this forces me to adopt a perspective that my knowledge, or lack thereof, has an impact on existence.
I don’t believe god exists. I may be wrong. I am an atheist.
At some point, an agnostic may provide me with a formal proof, with standards we both agree on, that we cannot demonstrate the existence or non-existence of God. I’d consider it quite an eye-opener. Until then, I am quite satisfied with more mundane and practical definitions of knowledge and proof.
Thread has been thoroughly derailed. Let’s try to get it back on track:
Atheism = don’t think there’s a god
Religious = thinks there is a god
Agnostic = not sure
Do not, I repeat do not start with the old hair splitting orgy. For this argument it doesn’t matter exactly how you define the difference between atheism/agnosticism. That’s not the point. There are two points of debate:
Question 1: What is the difference between agnosticism and religiousness? Where is the border?
My current answer: Only someone who acts as if what he believes is true does in fact believe it. Since most people do not act as if there was a god or a paradise afterlife, they are in fact not religious.
Question 2: What are the implications of ‘real’ religiousness?
My current answer: Anyone who believes in a paradise afterlife is highly likely to be dangerous and unpredictable.
So, agnostics believe that the question is unanswerable.
What evidence do they have for this conviction?
Fair enough.
Unfounded. Plenty of people have religious beliefs and live by them.
And my claim is that they do in fact not act as if they actually believed. The most extreme case being that if you actually believe in the existence of a paradise afterlife, you will be looking forward to death. I think most people don’t.
That depends on whether the paradise is the only afterlife they believe in. Add in a hell for doing wrong, or even oblivion for doing wrong, and there is a very strong reason not to do wrong. Since “Thou shalt not kill” is pretty straightforward, we can rely on anyone believing in that particular commandment as “from God” to be pretty reluctant to kill someone else in God’s name. Granted, history is replete with examples of people justifying killing in God’s name who nevertheless professed that commandment. Still, I lived in a neighborhood once where one guy knifed another on the corner I lived closest to, in an argument over a VCR. People are pretty good at rationalizing and justifying violence against each other over just about anything. Religion is just one of the crowd.
If I told you I was going to cut your arm off with a saw if I ever found out you were breaking any rules. And you believed me. And you knew I was going through your e-mail, listening in on your phone calls, following you to work and checking your car, your desk, your home, everything. I never sleep. And you know I am doing this. And you know I am completely fucking psycho and that I never travel without my saw. And I’m connected so the police won’t do shit to protect you. Would you be breaking any rules now? And if you did, wouldn’t you be seriously fucking worried about it?
And that’s just for probably getting your arm sawed off, definetely going to hell should reasonably rank higher. I mean if you get the option between losing an arm and going to hell, and you pick losing the arm, you don’t really believe in hell.
And if you get the option between banging a stripper, or spending eternity in paradise, and you pick the stripper, you obviously don’t believe in paradise.
Mind if I use this example? It is the basic argument I try to make with people who are ‘religious’ yet don’t practice their supposed religion, but much better worded than I could make.
Don’t bother. “God forgives” is the magic Get Out Of Jail Free card they will counter with.
Why is it that every time this topic comes up, it’s always us aphilatelists that end up taking abuse? Can’t you just leave us out of it?
I presume that people are born in a neutral position, but some grow towards faith, others away from it.
I already responded to this back in Post #15. I stand by what I said then, and I would add:
Death itself can be pretty painful and unpleasant. I look forward to Heaven, but I don’t look forward to death. Kind of in the way that, if I were sick (or lame, or in chronic pain), but surgery could heal me, I could look forward to being well while being apprehensive about the operation.
I believe in and look forward to Heaven, but that doesn’t mean I’m in any hurry to die. Partly that’s because I don’t think I’m ready; I still have unfinished business here. Partly that’s because of the grief and trouble it would cause those who love me and/or depend on me. Partly it’s that Heaven will still be there when I do die, so what’s the hurry? Partly it’s fear of the aforementioned pain of actually dying. And partly it’s because I don’t know much of anything about the afterlife, and the unknown is scary. None of these is incompatible with believing in “a paradise afterlife.”
Or it could just mean you suck at delaying gratification. People have lost more immediate and tangible things from banging a stripper.
People do stupid stuff all the time. Do smokers not believe in lung cancer and emphysema, for instance?
You get the news tomorrow that you have incurable cancer and will be dead in two days. The death will be almost painless. Happy?
You can’t be “not ready”. It’s optimal bliss. The very concept of it is that you can’t fail, can’t regret it, can’t not love it. It’s the best party in the world and it is come as you are, you can’t be too early for it.
Sure you’ll leave people behind, but it is heaven. They’ll be there too! In fact, the only reason not to kill everyone you love is that it might exclude You from getting there. But if you all are sitting in the same airplane when the engines go out at 10.000 feet, you’ll all be cheering. Right?