To identify one's position all it takes are two very simple yes/no questions.
1. Do you believe in the claim "at least one god exists"?
No: atheist
Yes: deist/theist
2. Do you know, with absolute certainty, that at least one god exists/does not exist?
No: agnostic
Yes: gnostic
That would be weak agnosticism. The position of strong agnosticism (that it is impossible for anyone to know) is nonsense because the premise that it is impossible to know has not been demonstrated to be true.
In regard to the topic of the thread, Richard Dawkins is an excellent evolutionary biologist, but not a really good atheist debater. He understands logical fallacies and does a reasonable job of trashing theistic arguments, but his presentation sometimes leaves much to be desired. A good atheist debater would be someone like Matt Dillahunty, who gets straight to the point every time.
1. Do you believe in the claim "at least one god exists"?
No: atheist
Yes: deist/theist
2. Do you know, with absolute certainty, that at least one god exists/does not exist?
No: agnostic
Yes: gnostic
That would be weak agnosticism. The position of strong agnosticism (that it is impossible for anyone to know) is nonsense because the premise that it is impossible to know has not been demonstrated to be true.
In regard to the topic of the thread, Richard Dawkins is an excellent evolutionary biologist, but not a really good atheist debater. He understands logical fallacies and does a reasonable job of trashing theistic arguments, but his presentation sometimes leaves much to be desired. A good atheist debater would be someone like Matt Dillahunty, who gets straight to the point every time.
"Faith is the excuse people give when they have no evidence."
- Matt Dillahunty.
- Matt Dillahunty.
