Einstein himself never said, “I do not believe in God”, or any words to that effect. He put the word “personal” in there, do you note? Why? Obviously, if he wanted to express a lack of belief in a god, he could have left “personal” out. Since he put it in, he must have believed in a god, or at least left the door open for belief.
Agnostics do not believe in God. Einstein said he is an agnostic. Therefore, Einstein did not believe in God.
It’s very simple really.
That would be entirely past the discussion in this thread; however, I don’t mean to get onto your case, nor am I making stuff up, it’s just simply the case that the categorical division you are attempting to draw doesn’t really exist – while agnosticism has taken on the somewhat definitionally lax meaning of ‘not really knowing if there’s a god or not’ (which is, in my opinion, rightly seen as an atheistic viewpoint, since it is the view that lacks belief – the true opposite would be some sort of anti-theism, an active belief in the non-existence of god), its original meaning, applied to god’s existence, is that the question is simply not decidable, which is a position that can reasonably be held both by theists and atheists.
No, you have three: Religous dudes (who beleive in a diety) atheists (who beleive there is no deity) and agnostics who don’t know. I maintain that a strict atheist works on faith also- they have complete faith there is no God. It’s a faith as strong as many religous people have. Like in WWII, some would say there were two sides- Axis & Allies, but there were a good number of neutral nations. Agnostics are the neutrals.
Clearly, Einsteins beleifs or lack there-of changed through his life time. But if you call him “some sort of vague deist verging on agnostic” you would be closest, IMHO.
Nevertheless, somebody who also said:
does not really sound like somebody who believes in a god, or don’t you agree?
Not so. Agnostics don’t believe in gods to the same extent that they do, in general. Their amount of belief either way is the same. It makes just as much sense to put them in the believer camp for admitting the possibility of gods than it does to put them in the unbeliever camp for admitting the possibility they don’t. They’re neutral on the issue.
That’s simply not what atheism means. An atheist lacks belief in the existence of a god; that’s all there is to it. That some atheists possess active belief in the non-existence of a god (and should therefore call themselves rightly anti-theists), is totally incidental to the matter (i.e. you can be an atheist and an anti-theist, however, you can also be just an atheist).
And I’m not making up definitions just to support my preconceived notions; the different terms denote distinctly different philosophies and lumping them all together just muddies the waters.
I know it’s a bit of a hijack, I just asked because under the definition I’m accustomed to, something that doesn’t interact with the physical world doesn’t exist. So the sentence doesn’t make much sense to me.
I am aware of the original definition, I’ve kind of given up using it, it seems everyone uses the “fence-sitter” version. True, under that definition one could be an agnostic theist, or an agnostic atheist. Under the fence sitter definition you would surely agree all agnostics are atheists, though?
They’re still atheists. They don’t believe in a god, so they’re an atheist. That’s all there is to it.
This bit really grates on me. Virtually no one, other than teenagers who haven’t really thought about it much, believes absolutely that there is no God. It’s a very unhelpful definition, as theists use it as a strawman constantly. Very, very annoying.
But they do, to the same extent they don’t (or rather, they do as agnostics overall). The amount of belief is the same as the amount of unbelief, and by that point, it makes as much sense to say they are believers as it does to say they are unbelievers.
In that case, I simply wouldn’t use the word ‘agnostic’, since there’d be no need for it; one might argue that, to the fence-sitter agnostic, the question of whether or not god exists is just about 50/50, while to the typical atheist, odds are more like some gazillion to one against, but if that’s a useful distinction I’m not too sure.
Anyway, I’m greatly in favour of keeping agnosticism in its original meaning, because it’s a well-defined philosophical concept that otherwise is cumbersome to express; there is a distinct difference between being, say, an agnostic theist and a believer in a manifest god that asserts himself experientially in the world, like for instance by appearing on tortillas.
No, they accept that there may be a god, they simply have no belief in a god.
Atheists are sure there’s no god, and strive constantly to convert others to their beleif, mostly by ridiculing believers. Many threads here in GD and the PIT show this clearly.
I can’t make sense of this. Either someone believes in a deity, or they don’t. It’s binary. If they don’t they’re an atheist, even if they’re a reeeeeeeeeeally weak one, who could be pushed by a feather to be a theist.
The standard definition of atheist is simply someone who doesn’t believe in a god. Your definition describes very, very few people, and is consequently not very useful.
Yes, I’m very much in favor of the original definition too. Sadly, it seems we have lost this battle. Almost everything thinks of theist/atheist as two camps, with agnostics in the middle. Very annoying, but alas.
I’m an atheist. I’m not “sure there’s no god”- I simply maintain that as there exists no evidence for a god, I’m not going to assume that god exists and live my life as if one does.
Do you accept that there might be invisible pink unicorns?
I frankly don’t care whether you, or anyone else, believe in god(s) or not. The point at which I do start to care, however, is when you try to misrepresent me, either through claiming that I’m not really an atheist or by forcing my tax dollars to subsidize your delusions.
That seems rather silly to me. I mean, you’re using arenas wherein debate and ridiculing happens to prove all atheists strive to persuade and ridicule? Gosh, i’d be shocked to find such things going in this here establishment.
Now, if you could find me some examples of atheists trying to convert and ridiculing believers in some of the other forums, that would be more impressive (and I imagine you’d certainly find ridiculing), but even then that wouldn’t be all atheists, and even then you’d need to link the ridiculing to conversion. I mean, how is it you can tell the religious affiliation of those posters who don’t mention it?
I seem to have managed to go a post without trying to convert you - do I get a merit badge of some kind for my great willpower? 
It’s not binary. There’s also “not sure”. Someone who would not be happy saying there is a god, and also not happy saying there isn’t.
If you aren’t sure then you don’t believe in a god, and are an atheist.
Someone who is happy to say both is a liar.
If you aren’t sure then you believe as much as you don’t believe, and are an agnostic.
I said “not happy”.
I don’t think that symmetry really exists – you’re an atheist if you don’t believe, and if you’re not sure, you don’t believe. It’s a consequence of atheism not being the diametral opposite of theism, but its complement. Look at it this way: most atheists (those that are not explicitly anti-theistic) would acknowledge that there’s a possibility of god’s existence, while to the theist, god’s non-existence isn’t an option.
Nevertheless, I think I’ll be done with this hijack; maybe it’d be worthwhile to debate terminologies in a separate thread?
By the fence sitter definition, you’d be an agnostic and an atheist, since you don’t believe in a god.
Put it this way, if you aren’t happy saying “I believe in a god”, then you’re an atheist.
My bad!