Rusting Car Bumper

Yes yes Please read my previous posts. This is covered already. Its no different than saying "I dont believe in ghosts" or "I don't believe in lepecauns." There is no special word needed.

Most agnostics are atheists.

DC

Biff the unclean

That is an interesting point. I can think of no other subject where qualifiers of falsification need to be stated every time.
Certainly when you are speaking scientifically they are always implied. You can just say E=MC2. You don't have to add that since you cannot be everywhere you can't be sure that in some parallel universe it might not be different. Nor must you say that in the future someone may be able to prove that it does not.
It is always implied that "To the best of my knowledge" E=MC2.

"To the best of my knowledge" is always implied in any statement one makes -- until the subject is god.

Tellurian

To me, the definitions of atheist and agnostic are whatever you want them to be. As an Atheist, my definition of an agnostic is someone who is unsure of whether or not there is any god, and an atheist is someone who is certain within their own mind that there is no god.

Agnostic - can't make up their mind

Atheist - is certain

Marduk

�the difference between weak atheist and agnostic is that the agnostic feels there are some good arguments FOR God(s) and some good arguments AGAINST God(s).
They see it as two sides with an equally good chance of being right�

I don�t think so. I say I am an agnostic because I don�t know if there is something that fits some definition of God, a lack of complete knowledge of the universe, not because I think some God myths make anything resembling sense, or that the two sides are close to being equal.

To me it�s the same as saying �I dunno�

Starboy

Agreed. There are many of the religious that do confuse belief with definite knowledge.

Starboy

tskat

I pulled this snippit from a paper I wrote in my second year in college

Agnosticism: A Case Against Faith


...Many people do not know the difference of an agnostic and an atheist. A person who believes in a god usually thinks that one who does not believe in “their�? god(s) is an atheist or an infidel. It is detrimental that it be made clear: Atheists are not agnostics, and agnostics aren’t atheists. Let’s look at the origin of both names.

You can best understand Atheism when traced back to its Greek roots. For example, If you looked up atheism nowadays, the usual meaning of 'atheist' in an English Dictionary is: “someone who asserts there is no such being as God.�? The originally Greek prefixed 'a' should be read in the same way in 'atheist' as it is customarily read in other Greco-English words as 'amoral,' 'atypical,' and 'asymmetrical'. In this interpretation an atheist becomes: someone who is simply not a theist.

The word ‘agnostic’ can be traced from the mid to late 1800’s where Philosopher William Huxley, (who claims to have invented the word,) used it in many of his essays of “Free Thought.�? But we also can look into the Greek origins of this word as well. ‘A’ meaning ‘without’ and ‘gnosis’ means ‘knowledge’. This would leave Agnostic meaning: without knowledge, but in context: without knowledge of God. Quoted from Huxley himself in his paper "Agnosticism and Christianity,�?


“I further say that Agnosticism is not properly described as a "negative" creed, nor indeed as a creed of any kind, except in so far as it expresses absolute faith in the validity of a principle, which is as much ethical as intellectual. This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. That is what agnosticism asserts and, in my opinion, is all that is
essential to agnosticism.�?(Huxley)

Agnosticism isn’t a new phenomenon. It would be wrong to believe that people in history were not also skeptical about God and religion. It is just that new, more liberal environments are creating suitable conditions for people to admit to their skepticism of the modern standing dogmas. Also, the advancement of technology and sciences has indoctrinated contradiction to some stories in the bible. So it is even more common place to find an atheist or an agnostic because of liberation of modern studies. This is where an agnostic and an atheist relate. They both don’t agree with the given god/s from dogmas that exist today and also, they both may use the same arguments against these dogmas. Along with the ally of rejection in creed, Atheist and agnostics do share many of the same points of view, including the psychological reasons as to why religion exists, the origins and fall backs of the church and biblical readings, and even the science opposing to a supernatural being. But there is a difference in logic that separates the two from each other. And this is where an agnostic would convict an atheist to be just as wrong as a theist.

There is controversy on what the “real�? definition of atheism is, but for this paper it will be defined under the same definition, as one would speak of a theist. To not believe in a god, is just the same as believing in a god. Because under the point of view of an agnostic, both require to have a faith toward a belief that cannot be proved or disproved, therefore, atheism, and theism are both unsound...

breathilizer

I agree with Digital Chicken, and have posted this about Drange's article in another thread.

I took special note of this portion of the article:

He suggests avoiding the word "atheist" not because it is incorrect, but because the said definition is not commonly used in ordinary language. As far as I have observed in my lifetime (albeit I am only 19), ordinary language is often skewed by a biased culture. In the ordinary language of a conservative culture, to be described as liberal is to be described as a communist hippy. Obviously, this definition is not correct, but it does suit the biased ambitions of the conservative culture. Likewise, in the theistic culture of America, defining an atheist as someone who has an active belief that there are no gods suits the theist ambition to give atheists the burden of proof. But, just because this biased culture gives the term a false meaning does not mean that the true meaning should be avoided. In fact, I think to avoid the real definition, a lack of belief, would be to reward bigoted behavior, something I don't think any of us want to do.

I also don't like that he describes the labeling of babies as atheists to be perverse. Once again, that is an opinion put forth by a biased culture, and that has nothing to do with what the word means. Of course, Mr. Drange is an atheist himself, so I don't know why he would personally see it as perverse. But as far as the article goes, it seems that his argument against the definition of 'lack of belief' is based largely on cultural influence, and not on logic. He applies the "ick" factor as an argument of immorality rather than showing good reason behind it. Would it be perverse to call a tribe atheist if they didn't believe in gods? It wouldn't be if the definition were simply 'a lack of belief.' The perverse perception is a result of him using "ordinary language" definition rather than the (what I call the) correct definition. But if he uses the correct definition, then it wouldn't be perverse, would it?

Also,

He has confused what he calls "no-god-ism" with the active belief that there are no (zero) gods in the universe. I believe that "no-god-ism" would mean that there are no gods believed in, and not the belief that no gods exist. Of course, "no gods believed in" is synonymous with "a lack of belief in gods."

Gunnaheave

I would not suggest that the term "atheist" be extended to anyone who lacks belief in God for precisely the reason cited above, namely that this would be an uncommon usage, and it would imply tyhat manypeople with no conscious stance on the topic were actually atheists themselves. When combined with an awareness of the questions about God's existence and practical decisions about default judgements on the mattter, I think it is fair to use the term for quite a number of people who say they do not believe in God.

Part of the problem is that no-one's stance on any subject can be fully explained in terms of the logical import of their beliefs. Each such stance is also a response to the views put forth by others. To lack any thoughts about the subject might entail a world view which is logically equivalent to that of one who deliberately rejects god-beliefs, but in practice the one involves a commitment which is lacking in the other.