Agnostic Atheism? Your opinions thread's landfill

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Exactly! An agnostic atheist is one who says he DOES NOT KNOW whether God exists… meaning that God may exist… meaning that he is a theist in disguise.

Are you being deliberately provocative, or are you REALLY that stupid?

. Perhaps somebody else will dumb it down so you can grasp the difference. I can't be bothered.

[Epimethean]

He's definitely not stupid, pad, but he has no issue with believing what he wishes no matter what. Hey, waitaminit: He's the one behaving like a theist!

[dtango]

"god" and "God" are entirely different concepts....hilariously. Many an amusing qualifier can be added with respect to them both. I'm an atheist with regards to either, but an agnostic or gnostic when it comes to the distinction. I don't believe in either concept, but there's only one of them which I can claim knowledge of. Hope that this helps.

Oh, I see, gods never existed but there may be a God out there between our universe and His. No?
Little “g” gods were not a concept. pal, cause no one imagined them. They became “G” gods only after they climbed theologians’ ladder leading to the heavens.

Tango, are you seriously attempting the redefinition tap-dance that we so so often on these boards?

agnostic atheism- "meh, it's possible but I don't believe."
gnostic atheism- "this is absolute garbage and I'll show you exactly why."

agnostic atheism- "meh, it's possible but I don't believe. I would believe though if there is evidence!!
gnostic atheism- "God is bloody joke!”

I am not attempting to redefine anything. Atheism stands for complete denial of God’s existence. Those who cannot bring themselves to comprehend the enormous absurdity of the concept are not atheists.

Agnosticism when it refers to real issues (the origin of the universe, for example) is quite reasonable and acceptable but when it refers to philosophical issues it is utterly ridiculous.

Are you being deliberately provocative, or are you REALLY that stupid?

I simply cannot stand agnostics naming themselves atheists.

Hey, waitaminit: He's the one behaving like a theist!

Well, you better start behaving like theists, be dogmatic and tell your children that you do not believe in the existence of a God, not that one may exist and that you'll start praying to him as soon as he gives you the sign.

[Epimethean]

Uh, that seems to be your job, Tango, on your own personal trip to becoming a "G-oddity."

[dtango]

Uh, that seems to be your job, Tango, on your own personal trip to becoming a "G-oddity."

One wise saying by Dawkins:

I’d be surprised to meet many people in category 7, but I include it for symmetry with category 1, which is well populated.

We are here, us the A-7 oddities, to prove that brain damage caused by religion was neither absolute nor permanent!

[The Grand Nudger]

Sigh, you got that backwards. There are no Gods, but I cannot rule out the possibility of gods (mostly because of peoples definitions of god, but hey, gotta tell it like it is).
God-Theism
god-Deism

I don't believe in either. I don't believe in Gods because they do not exist. This isn't a belief, this is a statement of fact drawn from all available evidence (and all evidence required to make this statement is present)
-Gnostic atheism. Theists have "pre-defined" notions of their God, which are easy to criticize on the grounds of empiricism or logic. They make claims which they cannot back out of (even though they try).

I don't believe in gods because the concept is empty, and there is no more evidence for them than there is for God.
-Agnostic atheism. That said, there is no evidence or proof that they do not exist (I could argue this point at length, but any given deist could simply offer a definition that is beyond both...so I don't even waste my time.)...a shaky resting place, but again, gotta tell it like it is.

These sorts of modifiers are really only useful if you want to be precise in some sort of argument, and since we end up with so many of them around here, you find people being very precise. Atheist works fine for either most of the time. As atheism simply means "I don't believe". If you want to go any further you have to attach something, hence agnostic/gnostic/ignostic.......and so forth. This thread has been a monument to the sorts of garbage thinking you apply when you decide to interpret something......

[Epimethean]

If I'm reading you correctly, this means you just may be a category 6.99 atheist.



Which means you can't become a god.

[dtango]

Sigh, you got that backwards. There are no Gods, but I cannot rule out the possibility of gods (mostly because of peoples definitions of god, but hey, gotta tell it like it is).
God-Theism
god-Deism

As far as I know:
God-Theism-Deism = theology / philosophy.
gods = popular tradition

As long as we discuss God we are discussing a philosophical theory which is actually a fake philosophical theory because it did not originate in philosophical environment.
When we discuss gods we are discussing empirical ideas.

The situation is simple and clear but you stick with the purposefully blurred theological excuses and explanations.

The story of the gods is the story of Jesus because that is the model story that people were taught regarding gods and only by adapting that story Jesus story could be accepted by the people: The gods were born in caves and when mistreated by humans they were ascending to the skies!!

I am category 1 theist as regards gods, but category 7 atheist as regards God!

“g” theism is prerequisite to “G” atheism (no other way to enjoy the joke involved)!

[The Grand Nudger]

"So far as I know"...that should have been the moment that the lights went on for you.

"Popular tradition" gods like Thor, Ra, Yahweh, Wakan-Tanka are all theistic gods. Big G...gods with names, and attributes. Gods that have some relationship with us, interfere in our affairs our the natural world.

Little g, god's with no names, no attributes, a clockwork universe that is indifferent to us, and requires nor exhibits any input beyond (and in some cases even extending to) the initial cause -deism.

[Epimethean]

The polytheistic gods have been, in their time, as "theological" as any solo divinity. The Hindu system still preserves this, and those who worship do not trace the lineage of their gods to human roots. Call the root of all gods the manifestation of man's imagination. The capitalization does not grant any more or less real status save to the mind of the one who feels compelled to capitalize it. "Deus" and "Deva" are most likely related words, the former deriving from the latter. I capitalized the first because it was the first word in a sentence, the latter because it is the proper name of a god. The issue of capitalization is simply the missing "name" of the xtian god, which has conferred upon it the benefit of capitalization to distinguish it in the context of all the other gods. This disappears if we call him "Yahweh" or some other name, because we might well see this name in the context of other lower case gods. But, as xtians are fearful of pissing off their god, they capitalize the name even when it is absent. It is transference capitalization.