An "atheist" is a person who either "believes" there are no gods...or who "believes it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one." — Frank Apisa
The confused are the last to recognize they're confused though ...Your definition is the worse of the two, it confuses category and sub category. — DingoJones
:up:An analogy would be “berries”....you are defining “berry” as strawberrys and blue berries. Atheism is like “berry”, the guy that believes there are no gods is the “strawberry” and the guy thinking it more likely that there is no god the “blueberry”. An Agnostic could be a “raspberry”, just another berry (another type of person who lacks belief in god).
I am an agnostic who has clearly stated my agnostic position...and anyone supposing I am a closet theists is just being an asshole. — Frank Apisa
Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, and Stephen Hawking were all educated guys...and they chose agnostic. — Frank Apisa
An "atheist" is a person who either "believes" there are no gods...or who "believes it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one."
— Frank Apisa
↪Frank Apisa
I think the definition of atheism “lacking belief in god” is the most sensible. This is accurate because all atheists lack a belief in god, it is the common denominator of the atheist category, and that makes it definitive of what an atheist is.
Contrasted to your own definition
“An "atheist" is a person who either "believes" there are no gods...or who "believes it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one." — DingoJones
I am an agnostic who has clearly stated my agnostic position...and anyone supposing I am a closet theists is just being an asshole.
— Frank Apisa
And when we heard your agnostic position, we said, "wow, that sounds just like what I believe. Oh, you call yourself 'agnostic', I call myself 'atheist'. When I look around, most people with our beliefs call themselves 'atheist', so why do you stick with 'agnostic'?
While discussions can get heated, I don't understand what is offensive or angering about that question? — ZhouBoTong
Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, and Stephen Hawking were all educated guys...and they chose agnostic.
— Frank Apisa
When you say "agnostic" do you mean the view that we don't know now, but we might someday? Or do you mean that this knowledge is forever beyond us? — frank
There is no way I can possibly know that the information is unknowable. — Frank Apisa
There is no way I can possibly know that the information is unknowable.
— Frank Apisa
It can be argued that it's unknowable. That's what some people mean by "agnostic." If the speaker doesn't make it clear, you have to ask. — frank
Anything can be argued, Frank. — Frank Apisa
1) Lack a "belief" that any gods exist
2) Lack a "belief" that no gods exist
3) Do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to make a meaningful guess in either direction
and 4) DO NOT MAKE A GUESS IN EITHER DIRECTION... — Frank Apisa
Anything can be argued, Frank.
— Frank Apisa
No, look up "agnostic." One of the meanings is the view that the existence of divinity is unknowable.
There's an agnostic in the corner gnashing her teeth because you keep misusing her word.
15 minutes ago — frank
1) Lack a "belief" that any gods exist
2) Lack a "belief" that no gods exist
3) Do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to make a meaningful guess in either direction
and 4) DO NOT MAKE A GUESS IN EITHER DIRECTION...
— Frank Apisa
Yes to all. Unless they profess a belief that a god does exist??
Many atheists consider the question of god itself to be nonsense. So yes, they don't make a guess in either direction. — ZhouBoTong
You must have some concept of "god" in mind in order to make these statements. What are you referring to?I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction... — Frank Apisa
There must be some kind of way outta of here
Said the joker to the thief
There's too much CONFUSION
I can't get no relief — Bob / Jimi
That's my point when I state that g/G is underdetermined (re: caveat A). Any scriptural or theological account can and will do. And does for most individuals & creeds.↪180 Proof
1. "god" is not defined — Relativist
Loosely, for the sake of discussion, Popper's / Feyerabend's / Taleb's critical rationalism for hypothetical-deductive conjectures (i.e. explanations, predictions - re: causal algorithms (models)) and Susan Haack's fallibilistic foundherentism for beliefs, or beliefs-formation, (i.e. descriptions, expectations - re: correlational heuristics (data)).2. How are you defining "knowledge"?
A Mormon could believe the Catholic god doesn't exist, but believe the Mormon god exists. These respective gods have some characteristics in common, but their differences make them uniqueThat's my point when I state that g/G is underdetermined (re: caveat A). Any scriptural or theological account can and will do. And does for most individuals & creeds. — 180 Proof
Please just state how you're defining it instead of referencing something else. My biggest issue is that generally, knowledge of x entails belief that x, but you are treating belief and knowledge as two different things.Loosely, for the sake of discussion, — 180 Proof
0. definition: No knowledge (contingently or necessarily)* that g/G or not g/G. — 180 Proof
I would make a bet with anyone that a trip to a mall...asking Mr. or Ms. Everyman to hear MY take...and ask: Is that a theist, atheist or agnostic...the overwhelming vote would be for agnostic. — Frank Apisa
So is the OP's confusion - for charity's sake, ignore his tediously repetitive argumentum ad populum - contagious?
Have I / we caught it too? — 180 Proof
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.