Atheist, agnostic, believer

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]Is the atheist saying he knows for a fact that God does not exist ?

I don't think any atheist could say they know for a fact God does not exist. I certainly don't.[/b]

Then by definition you are agnostic, not an atheist.

Originally posted by rwingett
Most atheists do NOT claim to know that god does not exist. Even Richard Dawkins does not claim to 'know' that. A vast majority of atheists make no knowledge claims whatsoever about the existence of a god or gods.

It seems to be a popularly held view that there are theists on one side, claiming to know that god exists, atheists on the other side, claimi ...[text shortened]... If you feel it necessary you may qualify that by self identifying as an 'agnostic atheist.'

Yeah, but that defies the dictionary definitions, maybe because some who identify with atheism do not want to seem unreasonable. However, an atheist is certain that there is no God. An agnostic is one who does not claim to know one way or another.

Originally posted by josephw
Everyone is a believer. 😛

An atheist believes there's no God. :'(

An agnostic believes he doesn't know. 🙄

A believer believes. 🙂

Well, an agnostic doesn't know. His or her believe in what he or she believes is irrelevant.

Originally posted by buckky
Yes it is.

I'm in the middle.

Originally posted by shavixmir
Even an atheist leaves the door open. Or, at least, most of them do.

You see, what you do is you look at all the evidence.
You check what seems like the most logical conclusion.
And you go with it.

In that respect, there's not a chance in Hell that God exists.

However, should God stick his finger up my arse and say: "I do exist!"
And psychothe ...[text shortened]... yeah, logical conclusions will lead to God existing and, presumably, a big pot of KY jelly.

Not that atheist I know.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No. It isn't.

Yes it is

Originally posted by Kunsoo
I'm in the middle.

I'm there with ya, it seeems. Plenty of room here ... want to join my clan?

Originally posted by Kunsoo
Then by definition you are agnostic, not an atheist.

A wiki quote from Dicky Dawkins to clarify -

According to Richard Dawkins, a distinction between agnosticism and atheism is unwieldy and depends on how close to zero we are willing to rate the probability of existence for any given god-like entity. Since in practice it is not worth contrasting a zero probability with one that is nearly indistinguishable from zero, he prefers to categorize himself as a "de facto atheist". He specifies his position by means of a scale of 1 to 7. On this scale, 1 indicates "100 per cent probability of God." A person ranking at 7 on the scale would be a person who says "I know there is no God..." Dawkins places himself at 6 on the scale, which he characterizes as "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there", but leaning toward 7. About himself, Dawkins continues that "I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic#Atheist_criticism

Originally posted by JS357
Any entity we could properly refer to as "God" would not be fully conceivable to the human mind, and would be, moreover, ineffable -- not describable in words. The idea of God is beyond human comprehension, because whatever is comprehended about such an entity, existent or not, must necessarily miss the mark. If you think you know something about God, that mea ...[text shortened]... "No entity I can conceive of, comprehend, or describe, could be God" and leave it at that.

Any entity we could properly refer to as "God" would not be fully conceivable to the human mind, and would be, moreover, ineffable -- not describable in words.

Shouldn't that statement say 'Any entity I could properly refer to as "God" would not be......'?

It's only a three letter word but it means so many things to so many people. What you perceive god to be, or try perceive god to be, is an entirely different concept to another person.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
A wiki quote from Dicky Dawkins to clarify -

According to Richard Dawkins, a distinction between agnosticism and atheism is unwieldy and depends on how close to zero we are willing to rate the probability of existence for any given god-like entity. Since in practice it is not worth contrasting a zero probability with one that is nearly indisti ...[text shortened]... tom of the garden."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic#Atheist_criticism

A lot of these quotes fail to capture the nuances that a discussion with the person would bring out. For example, there is talk here of non-zero probability, but any non-zero probability presupposes possibility. Is any old formulation of God supposed to be accepted as referring to a possible God? There may be as many formulations of God as there are people formulating them. Some discussion is needed as to which kinds of factors may have weight against the very possibility of a certain God existing, before its probability can be discussed. Logical possibility, for example, as a criterion generally accepted by theologians, requires a full examination of the logical compatibility of all the attributes, actions, etc. attributed to the God. Such full examinations are hardly ever done, in large part because ]theists do not present a full itemized list of logically analyzable items for review, or the attributes are called metaphorical, etc. So I think this clip from Dawkins needs to be viewed with that in mind.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
You asked him a question---he answered. What's the problem?

Robot style of response can be aggravating. Try to be a bit more creative and not so let me quote scripture to you.

Originally posted by buckky
I think you have me pegged as a non believer in a God. I'm not a non believer I'm just a person that knows nothing about the specifics. When I say I believe in God I really don't know exactlly what I mean by that. I believe this all can't be a big fluke. The fact that we are having this conversation tells me we are made up of more than flesh and bone. We thin ...[text shortened]... l deal. I'm fascinated with the spiritual side of life, but fustrated at the same time.

I'm glad you are a believer, but even the devil is a believer in God and the
devil trembles because he knows his time is short. I absolutely believe you
can have spiritual experience and miss God, as you can and find God. You do
not need drugs to find God; you don't need anything but a willing honest
heart, anything less is just that, less than honest. Since God is truth, He will
not play with our lies, but He does care for us, Jesus came and died for us
while we were yet sinners, so even at our worst we can come to Him. My
point to you is that again, God can and will be real to you as you come to
Him authentically as well.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm glad you are a believer, but even the devil is a believer in God and the
devil trembles because he knows his time is short. I absolutely believe you
can have spiritual experience and miss God, as you can and find God. You do
not need drugs to find God; you don't need anything but a willing honest
heart, anything less is just that, less than honest. ...[text shortened]... that again, God can and will be real to you as you come to
Him authentically as well.
Kelly

Don't take this the wrong way, but do you really think that there's anything in that paragraph that we all haven't heard over and over again? How about an original thought on the subject?

Originally posted by Kunsoo
Don't take this the wrong way, but do you really think that there's anything in that paragraph that we all haven't heard over and over again? How about an original thought on the subject?

Well the Word is supposed to get out to the whole world. 🙂
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Well the Word is supposed to get out to the whole world. 🙂
Kelly

Well, play with the concept a little. Address the arguments being made, using your belief system as a framework.

Just a suggestion.