[QUOTE=MaxTheVool ]
Uhh, I have no idea what you’re talking about at all or why you’re responding the way you are.
[/QUOTE]
It’s become a touchy subject for me, to be honest.
I’m not asserting anything…merely saying I’m rethinking my position wrt whether or not atheists are ‘just as religious as Christians’…‘religious’ being used a bit tongue in cheek there.
My apologies…I misunderheard you, and as I said, I’m a bit touchy on this subject these days.
-XT
I think you know what my point really was. If not, I guess it doesnt matter.
Otara
I realize there’s plenty of chatter here already, but just to state my views as I sees 'em:
Theism is the belief in deity.
Atheism is the lack thereof; it does not require an assertion to the contrary. No intellectually honest atheist can ever say they are certain no deity exists.
Agnosticism says that the existence of deity is unknowable. This is trivially true. There is no such thing as perfect proof or perfect disproof for such.
I’ve yet to see a useful third category, since I see “atheist” as comfortably including most of those who would probably describe themselves as “agnostic” (and the rest would probably fall into either “unconsidered” or “nonconventional theist”).
This is not to disparage any self-describe agnostics; simply statin’ my terms.
Honestly I am lost at this point.
xtisme, what exactly is your position, here?
On which point? I’ll answer honestly and non-snarkily. What specifically are you wanting my position on wrt this debate?
-XT
substitute unknowable with unknown
I’m not even sure.
This entire thread feels like it’s going all over the place and I’d rather try to figure out what you’re trying to argue, here.
Well, good luck with that…I’m posting most of this from my iPad while going through various air ports, and even I have lost track of what I was arguing here. 
Basically, I’m saying that atheist and agnostic are both labels that people self apply. As is theist, Christian, Muslim and all the rest. They mean what people THINK they mean, when they apply them. When I say I’m an ‘agnostic’, it means I feel a certain way about that label. To ME it could mean basically that I don’t believe in God, I’ve seen no proof that there is a God, but that there is still uncertainty in whether or not there MIGHT be a God (coupled with a health ‘I don’t really care if there is or not, I’m acting as if there isn’t until proven otherwise’). That’s what ‘agnostic’ means to ME. I take umbrage with folks who want to attempt to paste their labels on me, and tell me that I’m just a big pussy, and really I’m an atheist, but simply don’t have the balls or brains to admit this is the case and start marching along as I should.
Do I think that atheists are all in lockstep? Nope. I also don’t really think that most are locked in at 100% disbelief either. I have no problems with folks who self apply ‘atheist’ to themselves when their world view is exactly like mine, and I think that means ‘agnostic’. What I ask is the same curtsy in allowing me to apply my own labels to myself, without telling me I’m wrong in various snide or insulting ways. The point of part of the above exercise (I think…I have slept since then, so only have vague memories of what all I’ve said in this thread) was a reverse demonstration, to see how folks liked it when their own self applied labels were strawmanned and also disparaged using definitions that aren’t universally accepted…certainly not by the folks applying those labels to themselves.
Hopefully, somewhere upthread in all this mess I answered the OP, and did ‘more precisely state’ my position as an agnostic. If not, the I could go through it again, though my thought is that most folks would rather have a root canal than have me type more on this subject. 
-XT
Dishonest? Probably not.
Right? Possibly.
Semantics Jim.
I do not accept that any “god” described by man is correct. There is no proof for these constructs that I can accept, but! I do not accept that there is nothing beyond what we know.
Agnostic, weak atheist whatever. Labels are annoying, the world and people are not black and white.
Because that would be an ignorant thing to say, just because we don’t have evidence does not mean we shouldn’t explore the hypothesis.
Is this theoretical atheist against philosophy?
I pretty much agree with what I think you are saying, but I’m going to nitpick your language because ambiguity is why we have these long discussions.
Assertion to the contrary of what? If I define atheism as lack of belief in a deity (which I do) an assertion to the contrary is not very clear. Is it belief in a deity? Is it belief in no deity? One thing it isn’t is the assertion of knowledge about the existence of a deity.
I’d say theism and atheism are opposites, but strong atheism, the belief that there is no deity, is an extension of atheism and not directly contrary to any theistic position. Lacking belief in the nonexistence of a deity is true for both theists and weak atheists.
Well, the non-existence of any deity is unknowable. I’d contend that the knowledge of the existence of a deity is perfectly knowable if one would show up. We can’t disprove the existence of unicorns, but we sure could prove the existence of one. Or black swans.
We can disprove the existence of certain deities whose definitions are logically inconsistent or which directly contradict known physical evidence. Tri-omni gods are impossible, omni-benevolent gods appear to contradict the existence of non-essential suffering in the world. The god of the inerrant Bible is non-existent because of massive amounts of physical evidence say the Flood never happened.
Theists seem to say these days that God does not show his presence to be proved to exist because he cannot be proved to exist - which goes against the Bible. Actually the two alternatives are that he won’t show up for some reason or that he doesn’t exist - and the latter is much more reasonable.
Many of us do. That’s why we merely lurk and laugh at both sides.
Yeah, you never hear about disagreements between theists.
It’s pretty simple for me. I recognize that The Truth, whatever it may be or not be, may also be simply beyond the grasp of the six pounds of gray jelly that are all we barely-evolved apes have to think with. We can have faith, sure, and if faith makes you happy, go right ahead. But faith is not knowledge.
xt, don’t have a cow man. I (sorta) understand the root of your anger at being labeled one way or the other, despite why you insist on self-labeling as an agnostic. Point I think you miss is that actions speak louder than words, so why get caught in an endless semantic wrangling that is not going to do a damn thing to change either how you think or what you believe?
So freak freely as a godless agnostic. Hell, call me one as well if you need company.
On a bit more serious note, I’ll go back to what I said in my first post to this thread – and tons more like it – you live your life as if there is no god/s, simple, you’re an atheist.
All the rest is sophistry, pedantry and arguing for arguments’ sake. Pretty much describes The Dope, ehe?
May the god/s we don’t believe in bring us both all we wish for. Including 2012’s Playboy’s Playmate of The Year. And a pony. Don’t ask. It’ll be fun if it happens.
– bolding mine.
Which is why it makes so many/most of these ‘debates’ totally sterile. You cannot debate faith. So why bother?
ETA: Unless someone is trying to pass it off as knowledge. Gloves off…
Are we debating? I thought that agnostics were clarifying their position at the request of the OP. And since agnosticism has little to do with faith for most of us, we sure aren’t debating faith.
I am certainly not (debating). However, if I am not mistaken, quite a few people are debating semantics. And sure, agnosticism, in its classic definition as attributed to T.H. Huxley is not about faith but a declarative statement on the limits of knowledge. That said, let’s get real, Huxley’s definition is not the one most people have in mind when using the word to self-describe. And that’s the debate presented. I think the word has transcended its original meaning and it is now, in the mainstream, akin to skepticism as to the ultimate reaches of what is/will be known.
And in that sense, I am a weak agnostic. Simply another way of saying “I don’t know.”
Which pretty much settles the “debate” for me. Does not mean it does for you…
Seems to me that most people here are using a Huxleyian definition, rather than the more common “don’t care” or “haven’t decided” definitions but I’ll admit, I haven’t done a count.
I am an agnostic deist, married to an gnostic atheist, with one gnostic atheist child (kids think they know everything) and another “I don’t care” agnostic child. Weak atheism really doesn’t describe him because it implies he holds a position on belief…he’s at the don’t care to bother to have an opinion point and when he does have an opinion (rare, but it happens) he is as likely to come down on the God exists side as the God doesn’t. (Most of his friends are Christian). He is slightly more likely to have an opinion on God as on the aforementioned dark matter.