Atheists, what are your thoughts on us Agnostics?

[The Grand Nudger]

Speaking entirely for yourself, I'm quite certain you are correct.  You do not speak for at least one other atheist.

I'm pointing out that figurative gods are not what is addressed by the term, atheism, itself.  Figurative gods, by definition, are not gods.  A figurative use of a term explicitly denotes a reading other than the literal one.  Figuratively, money is a god to many.  That doesn't make them theists,  my using that phrase does not make me a theist, and the phrase itself does not make money a god.    

No, I'm quite certain there is something which god belief has been about.  It was never about literal gods but it was most certainly about something.  

Sure.  That doesn't leave room for anything but gnostic atheism, however, unless you imagine or at least think that there might be -some- literal god somewhere, maybe, that no one has ever described.  That's all that agnostic or gnostic atheism refers to.  A belief in or knowledge of literal gods, not a belief in or knowledge of figures of speech, or in some other x -not a god- used as the basis for a god belief or a figure of speech leveraging the term god.  

Since that something wasn't empirical in nature it was something internal, something within the subjective experience of people who believed.  I don't think I've said anything surprising.  But if you have some reason you think I should agree with you, go ahead and run it by me.  Otherwise I guess you're just saying you disagree.  Got it.

We both agree that god belief is based on something, we both agree that it is not based on a god, we both agree that there are no gods, we both agree that we possess certainty in that regard.   You're a gnostic atheist who thinks that god belief is based on something other than a god.  

So am I.

The only thing we disagree on, is whether or not you are a gnostic atheist. While you are certainly under no obligation to self identify as one, it does accurately describe your position. You could call yourself a whateverist(lol)..and I would simply take that to be your way of saying "gnostic atheist"....just as we have self identified "agnostics" here who are, accurately, atheists.

[brewer]

If his last name is Moore, it's out there. Look again. There is one review.

Not on the English amazon it aint.

Yea America!!!

Ain't promoting it. I'll send you a PM.

[Anon2381]

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 apparentl

Well put 
My journey from born-again christian to atheist had a short layover in agnostic town. For me giving up hope of eternity was liberating and scary. Now I see the difference between agnostic and atheist, because there is no part of me that believes this god shit is true. It was like taking that final step of bravery to jump off the mountain of BS. I have no problem with agnostics, because for many it helps people deal with death and the unknown. If you really think about it it does the same as religion.  Keeps you hopeful based on emotional faith.

[Simon Moon]

This chart clears it up pretty simply.

[brewer]

Ah, camon. Either shit or get off the pot.

(where is CL when you need her)

[The Grand Nudger]

This is one of those things, where the history of how we came to be in this position (quibbling over whether we are agnostics or atheists or agnostic atheists or gnostic atheists) is a deep and informative one (it's essentially the history of apologism, western culture, and western philosophy)...I get dissuaded from really diving in, -sometimes I think that people rail against the idea that...even in their non-belief...the way that the discussion has been framed - at a fundamental level- has been to disadvantage and discourage atheism insomuch as would be possible.  

The standards of knowledge, for example, have been tilted.  The faithful need merely to refer to the articles of their faith in order to consider the contents of their beliefs knowledge...but an atheist has to scour the universe and not-not know something?  Well, I'm sure that was convenient for the shamans who were actively dicking with early atheist thinkers....but other than that, it makes little sense.

Between atheists, who wants to be the guy claiming that they know everything, claiming that they know - for example, what is or isn't on the other side of the universe? Not that any gnostic has to claim that, but the religious have been insisting that they do for so long that even atheists feel as though..if they didn't know what was on the other side of the universe, they couldn't claim knowledge. They couldn't say there were no gods there. Couldn't be gnostic atheists.

[The Valkyrie]

Agnostics will be the last major group sent for "re-education" after the Muslims, Christians, Hindu, and other religious groups!

There they will be-


Ummm, I mean agnostics are just fine.

[Astonished]

Okay, all you agnostics here, if you want my two cents...tell me, what is it you're still unsure about that you are willing to say you haven't got enough information or knowledge to make a probabilistic determination about whatever it is you are suspending judgment about? I can't render an opinion without further information, so in this case, I'm agnostic about what opinion to have about y'alls. Also, what do you (this is down to the individual's opinion) consider to be adequate information/evidence to make an assumption, and do you require a certain minimum probability before accepting something as true, or are you the sort who require 'absolute' certainty?

[Whateverist]

Okay, all you agnostics here, if you want my two cents...tell me, what is it you're still unsure about that you are willing to say you haven't got enough information or knowledge to make a probabilistic determination about whatever it is you are suspending judgment about? I can't render an opinion without further information, so in this case, I'm agnostic about what opinion to have about y'alls. Also, what do you (this is down to the individual's opinion) consider to be adequate information/evidence to make an assumption, and do you require a certain minimum probability before accepting something as true, or are you the sort who require 'absolute' certainty?

It isn't about uncertainty. It is about incoherence and improperly applied language.

[Astonished]

Can you elaborate on what you mean by that? I mean, I THINK I see where you're going with it, but I want to make sure I hit all the points.