Atheists, what are your thoughts on us Agnostics?

[NuclearEnergy]

These responses are quite interesting. Very educational, too!

[Whateverist]

For what it's worth, any god that is as simplistic as "God is that which allows for existence rather than non-existence" is literally defining god into existence, and I don't even bother with those.  It's not even cogent enough to have a position on - I could define god as the physical laws of the universe if I wanted.

That's right.  I think almost all of us, Christians and non-Christians alike, would define gods similarly: they are subjective agents, they are massively powerful, and perhaps they are immortal.

If I really thought that was all that "gods" referred to, I would be a gnostic atheist. That sort of god is ridiculous.

Even there, I think a lot of us here would suspect that there might very well be some kind of intelligence so incomprehensibly vast that it would seem like a god, much like we are something like gods in relation to the bacteria within us.

Nope, I'd still be a lights out gnostic atheist.

[Jenny A]

I am agnostic. I take a rather simple approach to this entire God thing. I personally see it as there is really no evidence to prove he exists, however, I also feel there is no evidence to prove that he does not exist. BUT...I do think that the lack of evidence of his existence sort of hints that it is more likely that a God does not exist. I believe it is scientifically irresponsible to say he does exist and vice versa. But like I said, due to the lack of evidence provided for that existence, it seems more likely that there is not a God.

I can understand why one would be an atheist for this reason. It really just does not make much sense for there to be a man in the sky.

I hope I am making sense. 

Yes, I have read the God delusion. It was a very interesting read and I think Richard Dawkins is a very smart man and makes some excellent points. I do think he is sort of an asshole though. [Sorry if I offended anyone with that statement].

I personally preferred "A brief history in time". 

Anyways, I digress.

I'm not really sure what agnostic means or what it means to you. By atheist I mean I do not have a current belief in any god or gods. How sure I am that there is no god is not part of the definition. That I do not have a belief in god is.

When I hear people say they are agnostic, what I hear is one of two things: (1) I don't believe but I'm trying really hard to believe; (2) I don't believe but I also don't think that it's possible to prove there is no God. I was alternative one in my late teens and early twenties. I am alternative two now. I would call myself an agnostic atheist now, meaning without a belief in god but not 100% sure the is no god.

What is your actual state of belief?

[Succubus]

If you don't believe in god you are an atheist. You may be an atheist because you are unsure, but if you answer no to the question "do you believe in god" you're an atheist.

You've nailed it, It doesn’t need to be complicated.

Q. 'Do you believe in god?'
A. 'I'm an agnostic.'
And immediately we have a disconnect, a non sequitur. It's an answer to a question that wasn't asked, why do people do this? For many years I was an agnostic atheist; it can't be known if god exists but I don't believe that god exists. Then one day on the road to Tesco's I had an epiphany. Of course it can be known! He can show up and do some god stuff, two thousand years and our man's still a no show. Well apart from pareidoliac* images on slices of toast, dogs arse's, wood panels and piss stains.

So I'm an atheist, and not a window dresser 6.9 recurring decimal atheist, I'm an all the way up to eleven gnostic atheist. I know 'God' does not exist.
And the screams are deafening, "But you can't prove that!"
No proof required, I am under no obligation to prove the non existence of an entity that cannot exist. The rules by which the universe operates proscribes such an entity. For example: the energy usage required to handle all the data that god constantly monitors of his seven billion currently active subjects would be so huge that it wouldn't need a small to medium hadron collider to detect, it would register on a £2.99 Aldi multimeter. He is also constantly monitoring and recording seven billion mind states @32 fps? you know, the soul? What's the point of having a soul if its not an accurate  record of everything we have ever experienced?
According to people who know things the memory capacity of the human brain is about a terabyte. Now supposing the Russians for whatever reason decide to explode a tzar bobma W over London Paris, we now have ~one million vaporized human beings. Every part of them + petabyte of memory is now a rapidly expanding cloud of plasma. Now according to people who claim to know things but don't, at the precise moment of their demise a snapshot of all these one million peoples lives is recorded so that they be reanimated in heaven. Or was it burn in hell? One million terabytes of data to defragment in a plank second?
Christians. Would you just pleeease fuck off!


* Not a real word apparently.

[vorlon13]

and if you believe in the wrong God, you actually believe in SATAN

[downbeatplumb]

[quote='bennyboy' pid='1573578' dateline='1498246026']

. . . or if you answer, "I don't know."

If you don't know then you would answer no to current belief in god, so atheist.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's right.  I think almost all of us, Christians and non-Christians alike, would define gods similarly: they are subjective agents, they are massively powerful, and perhaps they are immortal.

If I really thought that was all that "gods" referred to, I would be gnostic atheist.  That sort of god is ridiculous.

You probably -are- a gnostic atheist.  

A great many atheists are probably gnostic atheists..but due to centuries of disinformation, social pressure, and general douchebaggery from the religious nitwits; either fail to recognize themselves as such or do not wish to identify themselves as such.

You might, for example, be sitting there thinking "surely there has to be more to this god shit..it's so painfully ridiculous, there has to be more to it for all these people throughout all this time - a hidden variable"

-There isn't. The nitwits have been desperately -trying- to add the "more" to it for all this time..and the ridiculous shit you're looking at now is the sum total of all that work.

[thereverent1]

I am agnostic. I take a rather simple approach to this entire God thing. I personally see it as there is really no evidence to prove he exists, however, I also feel there is no evidence to prove that he does not exist. BUT...I do think that the lack of evidence of his existence sort of hints that it is more likely that a God does not exist.

I'm an atheist - meaning that I believe that God does not exist.  But I also believe that God is logically necessary.  So I can actually say that I am an atheist who believes in God.  This isn't purely semantics-- it's theology.
There are many philosophers, like notably Wittgenstein, who believe that there are no theological truths.  I think there ARE theological truths, though they are very few in number.  I explain all this in my book "The Reverent Atheist", which is available on Amazon.

[Pat Mustard]

I am agnostic. I take a rather simple approach to this entire God thing. I personally see it as there is really no evidence to prove he exists, however, I also feel there is no evidence to prove that he does not exist. BUT...I do think that the lack of evidence of his existence sort of hints that it is more likely that a God does not exist. I believe it is scientifically irresponsible to say he does exist and vice versa. But like I said, due to the lack of evidence provided for that existence, it seems more likely that there is not a God.

I can understand why one would be an atheist for this reason. It really just does not make much sense for there to be a man in the sky.

I hope I am making sense. 

Yes, I have read the God delusion. It was a very interesting read and I think Richard Dawkins is a very smart man and makes some excellent points. I do think he is sort of an asshole though. [Sorry if I offended anyone with that statement].

I personally preferred "A brief history in time". 

Anyways, I digress.

Frankly ye lot are too crunchy to make a proper meal out of. Not like them succulent, juicy, christian babies.

[downbeatplumb]

I am agnostic. I take a rather simple approach to this entire God thing. I personally see it as there is really no evidence to prove he exists, however, I also feel there is no evidence to prove that he does not exist. BUT...I do think that the lack of evidence of his existence sort of hints that it is more likely that a God does not exist.

I'm an atheist - meaning that I believe that God does not exist.  But I also believe that God is logically necessary.  So I can actually say that I am an atheist who believes in God.  This isn't purely semantics-- it's theology.
There are many philosophers, like notably Wittgenstein, who believe that there are no theological truths.  I think there ARE theological truths, though they are very few in number.  I explain all this in my book "The Reverent Atheist", which is available on Amazon.

An atheist who believes in god is not an atheist.
That's like saying I'm an intelligent trump voter, the two are mutually exclusive.
By the way you may be over selling the availability of your book.
It aint on the Amazon I use.