What are the concepts behind the belief sytem of Atheism?

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: luthier
Some have mixed words that most philosophers including atheist scholars reject like agnostic atheist etc. their belief is true.

Agnostic Atheism has been around for over 100 years. Where do you find 'most philosophers' and 'atheist sholars' rejecting this term or particular theism?

Where do you find that most atheists are not atheists?source

7. Calling atheism a religion is like calling baldness a hair color. The “religion” of atheism and secular humanism is not taught in public schools, unless you think that conveying the best available scientific information is a religious act. If you wind up abandoning faith in supernatural things because of science, as many do, that is a collateral benefit to critical thinking.

Because if you admit you can not prove there is a god you are agnostic.

My knowledge does not come from googling facts from unknown sources and saying they are true.

It comes from rational philosophical arguments on the subject in philosophy classes guided by professors who can easily point out fallacy.

You can not believe god does not exist and also admit you can't prove that without just being plain old agnostic.

Personally I waiver between agnostic, deist, spinosism but am not an agnostic deist pantheist. That is ridiculous.

Getting good sources is important for debate, which I see you have none. Try turning in a paper proving or disproving anything to your philosophy professor without sources. You would have learned that in Philosophy 101. Or at least in high school English class.

You can disbelieve God (s) exist because there is absence of belief and absence of data.

I am not a student. This isn't a debate as most people don't use logic anyway. And no googling things to support my claim doesn't make it true.

You can not disprove god there is no dats to prove that. If you want the closest thing to proof read the finely tuned universe concept. Check out Fordhams philosophy professors work. Or should I google random facts that make it sound like I know something?

You could look for some facts, about anything.

So you are just oppositional? What are you referring to or are you here just to argue?

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: luthier
You're close. It means one thing, and one thing only, which is bolded above. Other than that, atheists are as varied in their beliefs as the thousands of sects of Christianity are.

Not really though those are specific minor differences. If one atheist believes there is no god and another that they can't prove it those are extreme differences.

Can you re-word that? I'm not understanding your point.

I think you may be confusing atheist, with anti-theist. Most atheists are NOT anti-theist. Whereas most anti-theists ARE atheist.

My point is there is no difference in these descriptions of atheism and agnosticism.

Though they are close, there IS a difference. An atheist lacks any belief in deities. An agnostic doesn't claim lack of belief, or disbelief. Only that they have no knowledge either way. There is often confusion between the two.

Completely agree...... or I would if there weren't a myriad of distinctions people seem to apply when wanting to define a grey area between the two when in actual fact I'm not sure it could be clearer.

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: Ghost147

There are a few types of Atheist. The "Evangelical Atheist" are the loud obnoxious ones that practice hard line intolerance (what they accuse religions of).

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Evangelical Atheist: An evangelical atheist is one who not only believes there is no god or other supreme being, but is obsessed with convincing everyone around them to become an atheist too, usually through hard-line intolerance (the kind they accuse other religions of).

When cornered they usually try to put down their opponent's religion and bash them for 'blind faith', not realizing that their belief that there is no god is no more or less valid or provable than the other guy's belief that there is one.

Not to be confused with normal atheists/agnostics, who for the most part just don't talk about religion and accept the beliefs of those around them as their prerogative. Evangelical atheists are particularly common on the Internet, as organized religion is generally accepted as part of 'the system' of global human society, and lately it's become cool on the Internet to hate 'the system'. Evangelical atheist usually seeks to "convert" borderline theists, often by engaging in debate with fundamentalists.


The New Atheists see religion as a disease to be exterminated. Their dream, in short, is not a government neutral to religion, but a government actively hostile to religion. The evangelical atheists assume that religion must inevitably breed mindless fanaticism. We see a determined attempt not just to keep organized religion out of government (which most religious Americans agree is a good idea), but to suppress religion completely.

I think the OP's query was is Atheism a belief system or a religion. The answer is neither. What does the above have to do with that?

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: luthier
You're close. It means one thing, and one thing only, which is bolded above. Other than that, atheists are as varied in their beliefs as the thousands of sects of Christianity are.

Not really though those are specific minor differences. If one atheist believes there is no god and another that they can't prove it those are extreme differences.

Can you re-word that? I'm not understanding your point.

I think you may be confusing atheist, with anti-theist. Most atheists are NOT anti-theist. Whereas most anti-theists ARE atheist.

My point is there is no difference in these descriptions of atheism and agnosticism.

Though they are close, there IS a difference. An atheist lacks any belief in deities. An agnostic doesn't claim lack of belief, or disbelief. Only that they have no knowledge either way. There is often confusion between the two.

Completely agree...... or I would if there weren't a myriad of distinctions people seem to apply when wanting to define a grey area between the two when in actual fact I'm not sure it could be clearer.

So if you believe god doesn't exist that is a belief. How can you also say you can not say god doesn't exist?. Either you believe there is no god or you believe there could be but don't believe one way or the other.why make up agnostic atheist and all these sub categories that seem to fit into agnosticism.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: luthier
Some have mixed words that most philosophers including atheist scholars reject like agnostic atheist etc. their belief is true.

Agnostic Atheism has been around for over 100 years. Where do you find 'most philosophers' and 'atheist sholars' rejecting this term or particular theism?

Where do you find that most atheists are not atheists?source

7. Calling atheism a religion is like calling baldness a hair color. The “religion” of atheism and secular humanism is not taught in public schools, unless you think that conveying the best available scientific information is a religious act. If you wind up abandoning faith in supernatural things because of science, as many do, that is a collateral benefit to critical thinking.

Because if you admit you can not prove there is a god you are agnostic.

My knowledge does not come from googling facts from unknown sources and saying they are true.

It comes from rational philosophical arguments on the subject in philosophy classes guided by professors who can easily point out fallacy.

You can not believe god does not exist and also admit you can't prove that without just being plain old agnostic.

Personally I waiver between agnostic, deist, spinosism but am not an agnostic deist pantheist. That is ridiculous.

Getting good sources is important for debate, which I see you have none. Try turning in a paper proving or disproving anything to your philosophy professor without sources. You would have learned that in Philosophy 101. Or at least in high school English class.

You can disbelieve God (s) exist because there is absence of belief and absence of data.

I am not a student. This isn't a debate as most people don't use logic anyway. And no googling things to support my claim doesn't make it true.

You can not disprove god there is no dats to prove that. If you want the closest thing to proof read the finely tuned universe concept. Check out Fordhams philosophy professors work. Or should I google random facts that make it sound like I know something?

You could look for some facts, about anything.

So you are just oppositional? What are you referring to or are you here just to argue?

I am not here to argue. I look for information and contribute to the discussion. I do like to source my information. You have said before to 'not google, explain'. I am more comfortable with sources and I try to find reasonable ones.
On the other hand, you have provided no facts and when someone does, that seems to not add veracity in your mind.

a reply to: luthier

What atheism is and the difference between atheism and agnosticism has been posted in this thread very clearly.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: luthier
Some have mixed words that most philosophers including atheist scholars reject like agnostic atheist etc. their belief is true.

Agnostic Atheism has been around for over 100 years. Where do you find 'most philosophers' and 'atheist sholars' rejecting this term or particular theism?

Where do you find that most atheists are not atheists?source

7. Calling atheism a religion is like calling baldness a hair color. The “religion” of atheism and secular humanism is not taught in public schools, unless you think that conveying the best available scientific information is a religious act. If you wind up abandoning faith in supernatural things because of science, as many do, that is a collateral benefit to critical thinking.

Because if you admit you can not prove there is a god you are agnostic.

My knowledge does not come from googling facts from unknown sources and saying they are true.

It comes from rational philosophical arguments on the subject in philosophy classes guided by professors who can easily point out fallacy.

You can not believe god does not exist and also admit you can't prove that without just being plain old agnostic.

Personally I waiver between agnostic, deist, spinosism but am not an agnostic deist pantheist. That is ridiculous.

Getting good sources is important for debate, which I see you have none. Try turning in a paper proving or disproving anything to your philosophy professor without sources. You would have learned that in Philosophy 101. Or at least in high school English class.

You can disbelieve God (s) exist because there is absence of belief and absence of data.

I am not a student. This isn't a debate as most people don't use logic anyway. And no googling things to support my claim doesn't make it true.

You can not disprove god there is no dats to prove that. If you want the closest thing to proof read the finely tuned universe concept. Check out Fordhams philosophy professors work. Or should I google random facts that make it sound like I know something?

You could look for some facts, about anything.

So you are just oppositional? What are you referring to or are you here just to argue?

I am not here to argue. I look for information and contribute to the discussion. I do like to source my information. You have said before to 'not google, explain'. I am more comfortable with sources and I try to find reasonable ones.
On the other hand, you have provided no facts and when someone does, that seems to not add veracity in your mind.

You want me to provide facts on metaphysics? I also did provide you sources but there are books and papers. You have to read them or already know of them. There is no way to discuss complex arguments by extracting phrases and paragraphs from books and papers on philosophy and metaphysics. What you want to do is impossible and only works with statistics and light science.

a reply to: infolurker

There are a few types of Atheist. The "Evangelical Atheist" are the loud obnoxious ones that practice hard line intolerance (what they accuse religions of).

So what's the problem? Christianity has been practicing "hardline intolerance" for centuries. What you quoted describes an anti-theist. Not an evangelical atheist.

An evangelical atheist is one who is not afraid to speak out against religion, in the same way religion has spoken out, and condemned everyone else for centuries. However, they are usually NOT for the extermination of peoples religions, as much as they are FOR religion being a personal matter, and not a means to conquer the world in said religions name. What Christianity has been doing for a very long time.

Get used to the evangelical atheist, and the anti-theist, because they aren't going away any time soon. And they aren't afraid to use the same tactics Christianity has and does use. Minus the bloodbaths in Christian history, that is.

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: infolurker

There are a few types of Atheist. The "Evangelical Atheist" are the loud obnoxious ones that practice hard line intolerance (what they accuse religions of).

So what's the problem? Christianity has been practicing "hardline intolerance" for centuries. What you quoted describes an anti-theist. Not an evangelical atheist.

An evangelical atheist is one who is not afraid to speak out against religion, in the same way religion has spoken out, and condemned everyone else for centuries. However, they are usually NOT for the extermination of peoples religions, as much as they are FOR religion being a personal matter, and not a means to conquer the world in said religions name. What Christianity has been doing for a very long time.

Get used to the evangelical atheist, and the anti-theist, because they aren't going away any time soon. And they aren't afraid to use the same tactics Christianity has and does use. Minus the bloodbaths in Christian history, that is.

Except no where in Christianity does it say to do what you describe. What you are talking about is what mankind has done. They do it no matter what they believe in the most part.

Should I judge atheists by Nietzsche's most angry syphilis ridden writing? People do bad things no matter what their belief system is. Men just used Christianity to do their bidding just as they used a more atheist communism to do bad. People seem to forget about communism and its evils (not at all what Marx intended).

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: luthier
Some have mixed words that most philosophers including atheist scholars reject like agnostic atheist etc. their belief is true.

Agnostic Atheism has been around for over 100 years. Where do you find 'most philosophers' and 'atheist sholars' rejecting this term or particular theism?

Where do you find that most atheists are not atheists?source

7. Calling atheism a religion is like calling baldness a hair color. The “religion” of atheism and secular humanism is not taught in public schools, unless you think that conveying the best available scientific information is a religious act. If you wind up abandoning faith in supernatural things because of science, as many do, that is a collateral benefit to critical thinking.

Because if you admit you can not prove there is a god you are agnostic.

My knowledge does not come from googling facts from unknown sources and saying they are true.

It comes from rational philosophical arguments on the subject in philosophy classes guided by professors who can easily point out fallacy.

You can not believe god does not exist and also admit you can't prove that without just being plain old agnostic.

Personally I waiver between agnostic, deist, spinosism but am not an agnostic deist pantheist. That is ridiculous.

Getting good sources is important for debate, which I see you have none. Try turning in a paper proving or disproving anything to your philosophy professor without sources. You would have learned that in Philosophy 101. Or at least in high school English class.

You can disbelieve God (s) exist because there is absence of belief and absence of data.

I am not a student. This isn't a debate as most people don't use logic anyway. And no googling things to support my claim doesn't make it true.

You can not disprove god there is no dats to prove that. If you want the closest thing to proof read the finely tuned universe concept. Check out Fordhams philosophy professors work. Or should I google random facts that make it sound like I know something?

You could look for some facts, about anything.

So you are just oppositional? What are you referring to or are you here just to argue?

I am not here to argue. I look for information and contribute to the discussion. I do like to source my information. You have said before to 'not google, explain'. I am more comfortable with sources and I try to find reasonable ones.
On the other hand, you have provided no facts and when someone does, that seems to not add veracity in your mind.

You want me to provide facts on metaphysics? I also did provide you sources but there are books and papers. You have to read them or already know of them. There is no way to discuss complex arguments by extracting phrases and paragraphs from books and papers on philosophy and metaphysics. What you want to do is impossible and only works with statistics and light science.

For the purpose of the OP's query, it is enough. For the way this discussion has drifted, it is also enough for the purposes of a forum discussion here.

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: luthier

What atheism is and the difference between atheism and agnosticism has been posted in this thread very clearly.

Certainly not by you. There are also several different definitions that mean different things here on this thread.

But why don't you use your own words and explain the differences then we will match them up with 10 or so on this thread.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: infolurker

There are a few types of Atheist. The "Evangelical Atheist" are the loud obnoxious ones that practice hard line intolerance (what they accuse religions of).

So what's the problem? Christianity has been practicing "hardline intolerance" for centuries. What you quoted describes an anti-theist. Not an evangelical atheist.

An evangelical atheist is one who is not afraid to speak out against religion, in the same way religion has spoken out, and condemned everyone else for centuries. However, they are usually NOT for the extermination of peoples religions, as much as they are FOR religion being a personal matter, and not a means to conquer the world in said religions name. What Christianity has been doing for a very long time.

Get used to the evangelical atheist, and the anti-theist, because they aren't going away any time soon. And they aren't afraid to use the same tactics Christianity has and does use. Minus the bloodbaths in Christian history, that is.

Except no where in Christianity does it say to do what you describe. What you are talking about is what mankind has done. They do it no matter what they believe in the most part.

Should I judge atheists by Nietzsche's most angry syphilis ridden writing? People do bad things no matter what their belief system is. Men just used Christianity to do their bidding just as they used a more atheist communism to do bad. People seem to forget about communism and its evils (not at all what Marx intended).

A good post. I don't often read a realistic outlook like this. Nevertheless, I was aiming more at the great commission, and Christian intolerance and judgement of ANYONE outside of Christianity, than I was at those who have murdered in it's name. Though many of them truly believed they were doing "god's will". Which is why I said "Minus the bloodbath".

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: luthier
Some have mixed words that most philosophers including atheist scholars reject like agnostic atheist etc. their belief is true.

Agnostic Atheism has been around for over 100 years. Where do you find 'most philosophers' and 'atheist sholars' rejecting this term or particular theism?

Where do you find that most atheists are not atheists?source

7. Calling atheism a religion is like calling baldness a hair color. The “religion” of atheism and secular humanism is not taught in public schools, unless you think that conveying the best available scientific information is a religious act. If you wind up abandoning faith in supernatural things because of science, as many do, that is a collateral benefit to critical thinking.

Because if you admit you can not prove there is a god you are agnostic.

My knowledge does not come from googling facts from unknown sources and saying they are true.

It comes from rational philosophical arguments on the subject in philosophy classes guided by professors who can easily point out fallacy.

You can not believe god does not exist and also admit you can't prove that without just being plain old agnostic.

Personally I waiver between agnostic, deist, spinosism but am not an agnostic deist pantheist. That is ridiculous.

Getting good sources is important for debate, which I see you have none. Try turning in a paper proving or disproving anything to your philosophy professor without sources. You would have learned that in Philosophy 101. Or at least in high school English class.

You can disbelieve God (s) exist because there is absence of belief and absence of data.

I am not a student. This isn't a debate as most people don't use logic anyway. And no googling things to support my claim doesn't make it true.

You can not disprove god there is no dats to prove that. If you want the closest thing to proof read the finely tuned universe concept. Check out Fordhams philosophy professors work. Or should I google random facts that make it sound like I know something?

You could look for some facts, about anything.

So you are just oppositional? What are you referring to or are you here just to argue?

I am not here to argue. I look for information and contribute to the discussion. I do like to source my information. You have said before to 'not google, explain'. I am more comfortable with sources and I try to find reasonable ones.
On the other hand, you have provided no facts and when someone does, that seems to not add veracity in your mind.

You want me to provide facts on metaphysics? I also did provide you sources but there are books and papers. You have to read them or already know of them. There is no way to discuss complex arguments by extracting phrases and paragraphs from books and papers on philosophy and metaphysics. What you want to do is impossible and only works with statistics and light science.

For the purpose of the OP's query, it is enough. For the way this discussion has drifted, it is also enough for the purposes of a forum discussion here.

Prove it. You haven't proved anything in your own words.

Another thing when you debate metaphysics its not drift to try and define what the real definitions of these words are. Its part of the process of finding out if it is a faith or not. Right now I want to know if an atheist believes no god exists, or just biblical gods, does it include the after life, what about god as a concept similar to pantheism?

I havent been satisified we have found any of this out. But who am I to say.

a reply to: luthier

Because if you admit you can not prove there is a god you are agnostic.

Most intellectually honest religious people, even the most devout, will admit that they can't prove that their god exists. Does that make them agnostic too?

I can't prove that any gods do not exist, but I have no beliefs or expectation of any gods. I consider myself an atheist. But when pressed to converse about the possibility of a god, I can hypothesize that IF a god does exist then it is a natural phenomena of some sort of cosmic consciousness that has arisen naturally from the universe itself. There may be more than one example of such an occurrence, as well, in that case.

I don't think I need to prove that the universe exists, nor do I need to prove that consciousness exists. But if the religious insist that the reality of the existence of these two things proves the existence of their god, then I say that their god is nothing more than the culmination of everything that exists.

Am I an atheist, like I believe I am in your eyes, or am I agnostic?

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: infolurker

There are a few types of Atheist. The "Evangelical Atheist" are the loud obnoxious ones that practice hard line intolerance (what they accuse religions of).

So what's the problem? Christianity has been practicing "hardline intolerance" for centuries. What you quoted describes an anti-theist. Not an evangelical atheist.

An evangelical atheist is one who is not afraid to speak out against religion, in the same way religion has spoken out, and condemned everyone else for centuries. However, they are usually NOT for the extermination of peoples religions, as much as they are FOR religion being a personal matter, and not a means to conquer the world in said religions name. What Christianity has been doing for a very long time.

Get used to the evangelical atheist, and the anti-theist, because they aren't going away any time soon. And they aren't afraid to use the same tactics Christianity has and does use. Minus the bloodbaths in Christian history, that is.

Except no where in Christianity does it say to do what you describe. What you are talking about is what mankind has done. They do it no matter what they believe in the most part.

Should I judge atheists by Nietzsche's most angry syphilis ridden writing? People do bad things no matter what their belief system is. Men just used Christianity to do their bidding just as they used a more atheist communism to do bad. People seem to forget about communism and its evils (not at all what Marx intended).

A good post. I don't often read a realistic outlook like this. Nevertheless, I was aiming more at the great commission, and Christian intolerance and judgement of ANYONE outside of Christianity, than I was at those who have murdered in it's name. Though many of them truly believed they were doing "god's will". Which is why I said "Minus the bloodbath".

Its easier to be objective since i am not a christian i dont get puffy and offended. I do find most christians completelty ignorant to their own religeon and its strong messages of peace, forgiveness, and compassion. Most of my atheist friwnds know more about their faith then they do sometimes.

a reply to: luthier

Consider something that YOU do not believe exists, be it fairies, Santa Claus, Slender Man, Bigfoot, etc.

Do you "believe" that they don't exist or do you have a lack of belief in them whatsoever?

Substitute "God" instead of what you've chosen as your thing that is not to be believed and that is how atheists perceive the idea of "God". It is a lack of belief. An understanding that such a concept is as nonsensical as the belief of leprechauns, unicorns or the dragons of fancy.

Now consider the possibility of Aliens(the humanoid kind) somewhere out there in the Universe. They could exist. They might exist. Some certainly believe that they DO exist, but the majority of us cannot be sure of that one way or the other. This would be considered an agnostic approach to the existence of humanoid aliens out there in the Universe.

Editing to add this response isn't solely intended for luthier, but your post poised the question that I'm answering.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: luthier

Because if you admit you can not prove there is a god you are agnostic.

Most intellectually honest religious people, even the most devout, will admit that they can't prove that their god exists. Does that make them agnostic too?

I can't prove that any gods do not exist, but I have no beliefs or expectation of any gods. I consider myself an atheist. But when pressed to converse about the possibility of a god, I can hypothesize that IF a god does exist then it is a natural phenomena of some sort of cosmic consciousness that has arisen naturally from the universe itself. There may be more than one example of such an occurrence, as well, in that case.

I don't think I need to prove that the universe exists, nor do I need to prove that consciousness exists. But if the religious insist that the reality of the existence of these two things proves the existence of their god, then I say that their god is nothing more than the culmination of everything that exists.

Am I an atheist, like I believe I am in your eyes, or am I agnostic?

No agnostics make no claim one way or the other.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: Ghost147

There are a few types of Atheist. The "Evangelical Atheist" are the loud obnoxious ones that practice hard line intolerance (what they accuse religions of).

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Evangelical Atheist: An evangelical atheist is one who not only believes there is no god or other supreme being, but is obsessed with convincing everyone around them to become an atheist too, usually through hard-line intolerance (the kind they accuse other religions of).

When cornered they usually try to put down their opponent's religion and bash them for 'blind faith', not realizing that their belief that there is no god is no more or less valid or provable than the other guy's belief that there is one.

Not to be confused with normal atheists/agnostics, who for the most part just don't talk about religion and accept the beliefs of those around them as their prerogative. Evangelical atheists are particularly common on the Internet, as organized religion is generally accepted as part of 'the system' of global human society, and lately it's become cool on the Internet to hate 'the system'. Evangelical atheist usually seeks to "convert" borderline theists, often by engaging in debate with fundamentalists.


The New Atheists see religion as a disease to be exterminated. Their dream, in short, is not a government neutral to religion, but a government actively hostile to religion. The evangelical atheists assume that religion must inevitably breed mindless fanaticism. We see a determined attempt not just to keep organized religion out of government (which most religious Americans agree is a good idea), but to suppress religion completely.

I think the OP's query was is Atheism a belief system or a religion. The answer is neither. What does the above have to do with that?

Easy. As there are many types of Atheists (you cannot put them all in a box), there are also those types who are "Evangelical and or Militant" that practice Atheism as a religion and have their "great commission" of winning converts just as any other religion.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: luthier
You're close. It means one thing, and one thing only, which is bolded above. Other than that, atheists are as varied in their beliefs as the thousands of sects of Christianity are.

Not really though those are specific minor differences. If one atheist believes there is no god and another that they can't prove it those are extreme differences.

Can you re-word that? I'm not understanding your point.

I think you may be confusing atheist, with anti-theist. Most atheists are NOT anti-theist. Whereas most anti-theists ARE atheist.

My point is there is no difference in these descriptions of atheism and agnosticism.

Though they are close, there IS a difference. An atheist lacks any belief in deities. An agnostic doesn't claim lack of belief, or disbelief. Only that they have no knowledge either way. There is often confusion between the two.

Completely agree...... or I would if there weren't a myriad of distinctions people seem to apply when wanting to define a grey area between the two when in actual fact I'm not sure it could be clearer.

So if you believe god doesn't exist that is a belief. How can you also say you can not say god doesn't exist?. Either you believe there is no god or you believe there could be but don't believe one way or the other.why make up agnostic atheist and all these sub categories that seem to fit into agnosticism.

Sorry if you thought I was saying otherwise but I was not, but ultimately that makes someone an agnostic, how much further that gets drilled into is what makes the book writers and opinion setters rich.

a reply to: infolurker

As there are many types of Atheists (you cannot put them all in a box), there are also those types who are "Evangelical and or Militant" that practice Atheism as a religion and have their "great commission" of winning converts just as any other religion.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. What would you expect after thousands of years of forced indoctrination at the end of sword?