Obviously I have a better grasp of the process than you, Finn.
Listen to what you are saying here!
The word came from the Greek meaning without gods. It means godless. It doesn’t mean “lacking a belief in gods.”
It has always meant an active denial of deities.
Agnostics do NOT have an active denial of deities.
We acknowledge freely that we do not know if they exist or not.
What is it with you people?
You don’t know -> agnostic. Fine.
But you keep claiming both ’ I do not “believe” there are no gods. ’ and ’ I do not “believe” there are gods. ’
If you believe those two statements are compatible, then you are an atheist, since you don’t believe there are gods. If what you actually mean is “I can’t make up my mind WHAT I believe”, then you may not be an atheist.
No offense, but i don’t actually believe you here. Further, this reminds me of the idea that the early romans had about Christians being polytheistic cannibals. Why are you accepting the outsider’s opinion (if correct), instead of the actual people?
As to the majority of the people (if correct), it seems they don’t actually know that agnostic refers to knowledge, not belief. So what though? If the majority of the people thought that the Amish were what all Christians were, would that make them correct?
Sorry, I’m agnostic to this particular fact of yours.
Seems that the people you know don’t really know what they are talking about - especially since they’d ‘laugh’ when discussing the definitions of words.
As to the weak qualifier, I’m sorry, but this is nonsense and I suspect you don’t have a lot of experience with atheological debates. Propositions get debated, and if the proposition is that god exists, then that’s what is debated. If it’s that god doesn’t exist, then that is what is debated.
What is a ‘real’ atheist? You seem to have many misconceptions here.
I can tell that you just can’t admit that you are incorrect here. You have repeatedly dodged my question - this evasion is telling.
I’ll ask again: Do you believe in god/s?
Saying you don’t know if they exist doesn’t answer this question - since the question is about YOUR BELIEF, not whether you know. I suspect you will once again dodge my question.
You are an atheist. They don’t mean it as an insult, just a descriptor.
You are redefining the word and being ‘careful’ about your redefinition.
This is nonsense. Please list the agnostics who ‘do not do that’. Seriously, ‘agnosticism’ is not a position on belief.
I agree.
Actually this isn’t true at all. Shoot, 20 years ago George Smith argued this way.
Because you know you do - which is why you won’t directly answer my question.
Nonsense - you and this litany of unnamed agnostics and others who debate with atheists are the only ones that are pretending you don’t.
Then you are an atheist.
Then you are a (confused) theist.
You are illogically holding to two different beliefs.
You are arguing that A=~A
Your position is incoherent.
Yes, we know - but do you believe in god/s existence?
I don’t really care, to be honest. I find it puzzling how you can hold to two mutually exclusive beliefs YET insist everyone else is incorrect.
Um…Are you serious on this or are you just trying to be funny?
I’m not greek and neither are you.
At least since 1913 it has not. As I have cited twice already in this thread. And you ignored both posts.
Even if that’s true, and it’s not, so what?
So do the vast majority of atheists.
Not accepting is denying. Will you please not skip over post #86? I asked you questions there I’d like you to answer.
I got them a long time ago. We’re not talking about what you know but about what you do or do not believe.
Nothing was wrong with it…I just wanted to see if I could get new people involved in the issue.
But one of the monitors has instructed me that I am not allowed to open other discussions on this issue…so the lack of freedom to do so will protect you from having to endure any more of them from me.
No I am not. I am an agnostic!
Only because you want it to be…not because of any intrinsic values of the statement. I do not believe there are no gods…and the theists at least have enough sense not to suggest that by virtue of that, I am a de facto theist! Good for them.
Well I can take your word for what the word “atheist” means…or I can take the definition from Webster’s Dictionary or from the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
Can you suggest why I should accept your definition over theirs?
I AM doing some proselytizing here…for sanity, logic, and reason. Not for any religion. Not having much luck, I’ll give you that. But I am working with atheists, so you gotta give me some slack.
I certainly will not get agreement from the atheists here. It’s like arguing with theists over their beliefs…and beliefs will always take precedence over logic and reason with atheists and theists.
Thank you for your comments.
Fallacy of the excluded middle 
This is a waste of time at this point. The OP is not going to accept correction, he’s never going to get people to accept his own inaccurate, self-serving definitions and he’s never going to get the big fight with those god-denying, tomato can atheists that he wants. Everyone is just spinning their wheels. This is never going to go anywhere. Other than the definition of “atheism,” I’m not even sure what he thinks he disagrees with his fellow atheists about.
You have posted exhaustively on this topic in a bunch of threads, including “Atheism and Agnosticism are not Mutually Exclusive,” and “Atheism is a religion!” and “Believers: How do we know that the Bible is God’s word?”
Which is allowed. You can continue repeating yourself if you want. All I did was ask you not to start another thread about it. To which I will add that you shouldn’t hijack any other existing threads either. If you want to keep discussing this topic, do it in this thread only.
Always was. The OP spends most of his time calling atheists liars, talking down to and/or insulting atheists and demonstrating that a lack of knowledge about epistemology and logic doesn’t prevent someone from trying to use them as a cudgel to prove their own massive superiority.
It seems at this point the only thing OP wants to discuss is basically grammar. He feels a word means one thing, most others say it means something else. Any attempt at exploring the actual positions being held, or the underlying logic behind the terms is seen as a distraction from the riveting debate over grammar in ancient greece. Could pretty much go in IMHO at this point.
Actually, what I am saying when I say "I do not ‘believe’ there are gods is: I am not willing to guess that there are gods. Obviously, I do not KNOW if there are gods…so the statement really is about guessing (or estimating or supposing.)
And when I am saying “I do not ‘believe’ there are NO GODS” I am saying: I am not willing to guess that there are no gods. Obviously, I do not KNOW if there are no gods…so the statement really is about guessing (or estimating or supposing.)
It makes perfect sense for a person who does not know if there are gods or not to say: I do not “believe” there are gods and I do not “believe” there are no gods.”
The “believing” part, no matter how atheists want to fudge it, IS AN ACTIVE participation.
Theists ACTIVELY believe there are gods. I can say I am not one of them by noting that I DO NOT believe there are gods.
Atheists, in my opinion, ACTIVELY believe there are no gods. I can say I am not one of them by noting that I DO NOT believe there are no gods.
Of course, Atheists want to say they are atheists just because they do not “believe” there are gods…but the fact is that the music tells us they actively believe there are no gods.
Now, I realize there is a huge advantage that accrues to atheists while in debate to say “I do not actively believe there are no gods.” Most atheists on the outside of debate…on the outside of the Internet…would laugh to the point of exhaustion at anyone purporting to be an atheist but who suggests that they do NOT believe there are no gods.
And well they should.
This whole argument from the atheist perspective is farce!
I am totally willing to give up the designation atheist and agnostic…and just talk about what our takes are on the issues. I have mentioned that many times.
But the atheists keep coming back to telling me that I am an atheist.
Don’t pretend that I am unwilling to drop the designations and just discuss the issues…because I not only am willing…I am hoping we will eventually get to that point.
The atheists here are the ones holding that up with their need to try to get me to be one of them.
In another thread the OP claimed that everyone was agnostic. When pressed on the fact that if that’s so it’s a useless descriptor, he backed off and said something to the effect of he was only being sarcastic. Oh really?
So how exactly is the word agnostic useful if we’re all agnostics, Frank?
Okay…so just so I am sure of what you are saying here:
I am not allowed to start any other threads on this topic…and even though there are other threads devoted to the topic, I am only allowed to post in this one.
Did I get that right?
It doesn’t matter. Read that dictionary you alluded to.
You’re wrong.
I’m done with this thread.
Frank, I asked you to please respond to post #86. Why are you avoiding it?
Then why did you create a new thread about the grammar issue when the other thread was getting into the meat of things?
As far as I can see the discussion always devolves into actual defenses of the positions, which is why agreement of the terms are impossible, because the two seem to be interrelated.
Basically atheists seem to generally be arguing that there is no quantitative difference between ‘agnostic’ not sure’ and atheists ‘I dont believe’, while agnostics argue there is one.
In my view the discussion breaks down because of definitional disagreements. In my view ‘not sure’ in an agnostic sense is more a zen state of ‘not knowing’ rather than the ‘in between two positions’ kind of concept that some seem to be arguing for.
Ie its an absence of a position rather than the ‘I think there isnt a god but there might be’ kind of thing that fits more with atheism.
Otara
I do not “actively believe there are no gods.” Sorry if that does not suit your agenda. Most atheists (“inside” or “outside the internet” whatever those distinctions are supposed to mean) are not strong atheists. Sorry if that doesn’t suit your agenda either, but attempting call people liars about what they think, so you can then attack what you want them to think instead of what they say they think is too amateurish and lame to even bother engaging with. Come back when you can at least rise to the level of mere sophistry.