Dear Atheists..

[SkyBlueFlux]

You've just described an agnostic. There is no "if" when you're an atheist.

An atheist doesn't believe, but KNOWS there is no such thing as a God, imaginary sky fairy or whatever they call it. Just as we know there's no Zeus, or Odin, or Father Chtristmas/Santa Claus.

An agnostic doesn't lend a belief to God, but questions whether or not there could be one, theoretically and holds the opinion that nobody can ever know for sure.

As per @GortonBlue62 above what you’re describing is the strongest possible definition of atheism. But that’s not related to agnosticism.

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive positions. Gnosticism describes knowledge, and theism describes belief, these are two different things. Atheism is the de facto opposite of theism. If you don’t believe in god, you are an atheist, your level of certainty has nothing to do with whether you believe something or not.

Dawkins describes the definition you provide as “strong atheism” or “gnostic atheism”. That is an affirmative assertion that there is definitely no god, taken from a position of holding some absolute knowledge. It is a position that not even Dawkins himself associates with. He says that he is a “de facto atheist”, somebody who sees god as tremendously improbable but has a non-zero chance of existing.

Frankly if being an atheist meant saying you knew 100% there was no god, then many of the people who are renowned atheists would not be classed as atheists. Very few hold this position. In fact I don’t know a single one. All the ones I know of are agnostic atheists.

 

[Marklr]

As per @GortonBlue62 above what you’re describing is the strongest possible definition of atheism. But that’s not related to agnosticism.

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive positions. Gnosticism describes knowledge, and theism describes belief, these are two different things. Atheism is the de facto opposite of theism. If you don’t believe in god, you are an atheist, your level of certainty has nothing to do with whether you believe something or not.

Dawkins describes the definition you provide as “strong atheism” or “gnostic atheism”. That is an affirmative assertion that there is definitely no god, taken from a position of holding some absolute knowledge. It is a position that not even Dawkins himself associates with. He says that he is a “de facto atheist”, somebody who sees god as tremendously improbable but has a non-zero chance of existing.

Frankly if being an atheist meant saying you knew 100% there was no god, then many of the people who are renowned atheists would not be classed as atheists. Very few hold this position. In fact I don’t know a single one. All the ones I know of are agnostic atheists.

This is why sometimes it's best to just describe your outlook rather than label it. Too many variations in the definition.

 

[Metal Biker]

As per @GortonBlue62 above what you’re describing is the strongest possible definition of atheism. But that’s not related to agnosticism.

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive positions. Gnosticism describes knowledge, and theism describes belief, these are two different things. Atheism is the de facto opposite of theism. If you don’t believe in god, you are an atheist, your level of certainty has nothing to do with whether you believe something or not.

Dawkins describes the definition you provide as “strong atheism” or “gnostic atheism”. That is an affirmative assertion that there is definitely no god, taken from a position of holding some absolute knowledge. It is a position that not even Dawkins himself associates with. He says that he is a “de facto atheist”, somebody who sees god as tremendously improbable but has a non-zero chance of existing.

Frankly if being an atheist meant saying you knew 100% there was no god, then many of the people who are renowned atheists would not be classed as atheists. Very few hold this position. In fact I don’t know a single one. All the ones I know of are agnostic atheists.

Yes, I am describing atheism. Thanks for confirming. It is the 100% rejection of there ever being a possibility of a "God" or "Higher Power" existing.

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

This is why sometimes it's best to just describe your outlook rather than label it. Too many variations in the definition.

I agree 100%. This is actually an underrated issue in this debate. There’s a lot of people talking at cross purposes because their definitions of what constitutes certain positions are different. To most layman an “agnostic” would just mean “somebody who is unsure” which is perfectly fair.

I am probably one of the most ‘atheistic’ people there could be in all practical matters, I don’t believe in any gods, live my life under the assumption there is no god, not a fan of religions, will argue vehemently against any kind of special treatment for religions in public life. But despite that, I don’t rise to some people’s definitions of an atheist (like Metal Biker’s) simply because I hold the position that god is unfalsifiable, he can neither be proven nor disproven (which is a very common position in atheist circles).

And at that point you have to start to question the value of labels, if they’re not actually describing any useful distinction.

 

[East Level 2]

The simple truth is there has to be a god because without a god there would be no heaven.
Without a heaven there would be no angels. There has to be angels.

I'm right aren't I.

Why would there be no angels without heaven? We've all heard of Hell's Angels.

 

[johnny crossan]

I can commend this discussion for those seeking enlightenment

 

[I'm With Stupid]

Yes, I am describing atheism. Thanks for confirming. It is the 100% rejection of there ever being a possibility of a "God" or "Higher Power" existing.

This is kinda the problem with atheism in response to woolly religious thinking though. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods at its broadest definition, and a position that gods categorically don't exist in its most narrow definition. But already, we then get the euphemism 'higher power' making an appearance, so to be an atheist by your definition, we also have to be willing to categorically state that something that you are incapable of actually articulating doesn't exist. The sun is a higher power, and I believe in the sun. You even hear people saying "I'm not sure I believe in God, but I believe in something" so I wonder if atheism also includes the assertion that "something" doesn't exist too.

You see atheism is a rejection that deities exist, and a deity is something with defined characteristics. It must be supernatural, considered sacred, worthy of worship, in some way responsible for the universe, and conscious. But of course it becomes much easier to characterise atheism as an illogical position if you strip away all of the characteristics that commonly define a god, and say that atheists have to reject a definition that I can't quite express (but it's on the tip of my tongue). Now if you want to come up with another definition and explain it, I'll tell you whether or not I believe in it. But if you ask me whether or not I believe in God, I'll stick to the commonly-understood definition of what a god is.

 

[Metal Biker]

This is kinda the problem with atheism in response to woolly religious thinking though. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods at its broadest definition, and a position that gods categorically don't exist in its most narrow definition. But already, we then get the euphemism 'higher power' making an appearance, so to be an atheist by your definition, we also have to be willing to categorically state that something that you are incapable of actually articulating doesn't exist. The sun is a higher power, and I believe in the sun. You even hear people saying "I'm not sure I believe in God, but I believe in something" so I wonder if atheism also includes the assertion that "something" doesn't exist too.

You see atheism is a rejection that deities exist, and a deity is something with defined characteristics. It must be supernatural, considered sacred, worthy of worship, in some way responsible for the universe, and conscious. But of course it becomes much easier to characterise atheism as an illogical position if you strip away all of the characteristics that commonly define a god, and say that atheists have to reject a definition that I can't quite express (but it's on the tip of my tongue). Now if you want to come up with another definition and explain it, I'll tell you whether or not I believe in it. But if you ask me whether or not I believe in God, I'll stick to the commonly-understood definition of what a god is.

No, 'genius', "Higher Power" in reference to any of the 3000+ type 'gods' that isn't classed as Abrahamic. Not a reference to celestial bodies.

I'm not bothering with the rest of your word vomit as it's just nonsense that amounts to "atheism bad".

 

[GortonBlue62]

This is kinda the problem with atheism in response to woolly religious thinking though. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods at its broadest definition, and a position that gods categorically don't exist in its most narrow definition. But already, we then get the euphemism 'higher power' making an appearance, so to be an atheist by your definition, we also have to be willing to categorically state that something that you are incapable of actually articulating doesn't exist. The sun is a higher power, and I believe in the sun. You even hear people saying "I'm not sure I believe in God, but I believe in something" so I wonder if atheism also includes the assertion that "something" doesn't exist too.

You see atheism is a rejection that deities exist, and a deity is something with defined characteristics. It must be supernatural, considered sacred, worthy of worship, in some way responsible for the universe, and conscious. But of course it becomes much easier to characterise atheism as an illogical position if you strip away all of the characteristics that commonly define a god, and say that atheists have to reject a definition that I can't quite express (but it's on the tip of my tongue). Now if you want to come up with another definition and explain it, I'll tell you whether or not I believe in it. But if you ask me whether or not I believe in God, I'll stick to the commonly-understood definition of what a god is.

The burden of proof lies with the fantastical claims that there is life after death and god created the universe.

As an atheist I'm comfortable just getting on with my life until there are further developments.

I'm not holding my breath, time is short. Death is a hard deadline.

 

[Marklr]

I agree 100%. This is actually an underrated issue in this debate. There’s a lot of people talking at cross purposes because their definitions of what constitutes certain positions are different. To most layman an “agnostic” would just mean “somebody who is unsure” which is perfectly fair.

I am probably one of the most ‘atheistic’ people there could be in all practical matters, I don’t believe in any gods, live my life under the assumption there is no god, not a fan of religions, will argue vehemently against any kind of special treatment for religions in public life. But despite that, I don’t rise to some people’s definitions of an atheist (like Metal Biker’s) simply because I hold the position that god is unfalsifiable, he can neither be proven nor disproven (which is a very common position in atheist circles).

And at that point you have to start to question the value of labels, if they’re not actually describing any useful distinction.

The confusion of definitions isn't just with religion either...it goes right across the board into politics and other common issues of the day. Labels cause wars.