Can you persuade me from Agnostic to Atheist?

[wiploc]

My source says that atheist means one who believes that there isn't a God.

My source says that atheist means one who likes blueberry waffles.

I'm skeptical.  

You'll forgive me if I don't take some unnamed source seriously.

Webster's and the OED and support him.  They also support us, but they definitely support the usage he likes.  Any dictionary too big to fit in your shirt pocket is very likely to give both definitions.  

We can't say that we're right and he's wrong.  No more can he say that he's right and we're wrong.  Both uses are supported by dictionaries, and by common usage.  So both are right.  

The only people who are wrong are those who say that one or the other definition is wrong.  

Probably more people use oldsys (AgnosticMan's preferred definitions).  But, among people identify as atheists, newsys is overwhelmingly preferred.  

-

@AgnosticMan123:  

If you go to an atheist hangout and insist that people modify their language to use your preferred system of definitions, you'll generate a lot of resistance.  I don't think you were trying to do that, but trolls do it all the time, which accounts for the reception you've gotten. 

I am just looking to be persuaded that there is no God.

Why?

Intellectual curiosity comes to mind.

What makes you think anyone is capable of doing such a thing?

It happens all the time.

[account_inactive]

So you're really just an agnostic. Got it.

What?

Just forget it. Never mind.

[wiploc]

I'm a tad confused here with the terminology. Help me out. Ok, this is where I stand, what would I be categorized as?

I do not believe in a god of any sort.

You are an atheist.

However, if a god or the God suddenly appeared before me (or I had enough compelling physical and factual evidence of a god) I would likely begin believing in that god. (i.e. I'm walking down the street. I think to myself "there is no God"...and all of a sudden Jesus drops down from heaven and begins talking to me. I would likely submit and dare not to challenge his authroity unless I was not totally convinced in some way.)

So is that just being a normal atheist?? Or being completely drunk? Or both?

That's just normal atheism.  If we knew whether you believe gods do not exist, we could say whether you are a strong or weak atheist.  

A. Theists believe that gods do exist.
B. Strong atheists believe that gods do not exist.  
C. Weak atheists (everybody else) don't believe either way.  

As a general rule, strong and weak atheists would both come across if presented with evidence of gods that would persuade a reasonable person.  Some of us would come across eagerly, even ecstatically.  I'm not that way anymore, but there was a time when I really wanted to be a Christian.  And many people who have recently left the church would dash back into it if they could just find a logical justification.  

Now lets consider gnosticism/agnosticism:

X. Gnostics know (or think they know) whether gods exist.  
Y. Agnostics (everybody else) don't know whether gods exist.  

Even the gnostic atheist would probably change her mind if the theists came up with a persuasive argument.  

So there is no generally-recognized category of people who would remain atheists in the teeth of compelling evidence.  

I've never met anyone in that category.  Allow me to name the category "obdurate atheism."  

In fact, the only declared obdurate person I know of is Plantinga.  He claims he would be a Christian regardless of the state of the evidence, because he is just personally incapable of nonbelief.  

So, Jeff, you needn't be at pains to distinguish yourself from the obdurate atheists, because, as far as I know, there is nobody in that category.  


[/quote]

[account_inactive]

I'm a tad confused here with the terminology. Help me out. Ok, this is where I stand, what would I be categorized as?

I do not believe in a god of any sort. However, if a god or the God suddenly appeared before me (or I had enough compelling physical and factual evidence of a god) I would likely begin believing in that god. (i.e. I'm walking down the street. I think to myself "there is no God"...and all of a sudden Jesus drops down from heaven and begins talking to me. I would likely submit and dare not to challenge his authroity unless I was not totally convinced in some way.)

So is that just being a normal atheist?? Or being completely drunk? Or both?

You're an atheist.

[ignoramus]

A good persuader could persuade me.

I'm a strong atheist: I believe that there are no gods. 

I will share some of my reasoning.

Can you please tell me if you think there is a difference between believing there are no gods to knowing there are no gods?   We'be been told a million times that God is outside of time and space and hence undetectable.
Which leads me to say that God is unknowable. Hence we CANNOT know that he doesn't exist.
The flip side obviously is that theists also cannot know.

To me, anyone who is certain that they know one way or the other is yanking his own chain...
If someone said to you that they know that fairies exist because they've seen them but only they can see them, would you take them seriously? That's how I feel about theists.

[account_inactive]

[wiploc]

I'm a strong atheist: I believe that there are no gods. 

I will share some of my reasoning.

Can you please tell me if you think there is a difference between believing there are no gods to knowing there are no gods?

I believe there are no gods, but I could be wrong, so my belief is not knowledge.  

We'be been told a million times that God is outside of time and space and hence undetectable.

That's one point of view.  

If a god doesn't exist at any time, and doesn't exist in any place, then not being detectable is the least of its problems.  

Which leads me to say that God is unknowable.

But you don't know that, do you?  

If a god is unknowable, then you can't know even whether it is knowable.  

Hence we CANNOT know that he doesn't exist.
The flip side obviously is that theists also cannot know.

Right: about unknowable gods, they know nothing.  

To me, anyone who is certain that they know one way or the other is yanking his own chain...

I'm a gnostic strong atheist when it comes to the SCG (standard Christian god).  That god is shot thru with logical contradictions; it cannot exist.  It can do anything, but it can't defeat iron chariots.  It can be seen but it can't be seen.  It is totally loving, but it tortures people forever.  It is totally just but nonetheless merciful.  It is all-knowing, but it can't find the kids in the garden.  It is omnipresent, but it uses pillars of fire to get around.  It created X before Y in one creation story, and Y before X in another.  It is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, and yet it coexists with evil.  

Like square circles and married bachelors, the SCG does not exist.  

Off-brand variants of the Christian gods are possible, even if they aren't plausible.  But the SCG does not exist.

[/quote]

[The Grand Nudger]

We'be been told a million times that God is outside of time and space and hence undetectable.
Which leads me to say that God is unknowable. Hence we CANNOT know that he doesn't exist.

We've been told a great many things, and we'd be foolish to accept them all at face value.  That others might decide to be evasive with their claims in no way weakens the confidence I have in what satisfies me as knowledge.  

To me, anyone who is certain that they know one way or the other is yanking his own chain...

-or, just maybe, you've allowed someone to yank yours?

[ignoramus]

It depends. What's your definition of god again?

[The Grand Nudger]

It isn't up to me to define.  Further, it's a near certainty that any definition -I- might have for a god would not be the definition any proponent of a god would accept, which could only mean that I would be imposing my positions on others from the outset.