From the American Atheist website:

Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

Agnostic isn’t just a “weaker” version of being an atheist. It answers a different question. Atheism is about what you believe. Agnosticism is about what you know. — Tom Storm

Agnostic - Doesn't know if God exists or not
Atheist - Denies God's existence entirely — Philosophim

No. THIS is the misunderstanding of the terms.

An atheist merely abstains from belief. They do not assert that God does NOT exist.

An agnostic believes/thinks we can’t know if God exists.

They can co-exist in one entity.

Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

Agnostic isn’t just a “weaker” version of being an atheist. It answers a different question. Atheism is about what you believe. Agnosticism is about what you know. — Tom Storm

Several problems with this.

1. To reject an assertion that there is a God, you either have to believe that there is no God, or know that there is no God.

"Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system" Ah, ok, so its knowledge then.
" To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods." Oh, so its not a belief then. So I guess they know there isn't a God. Seems unclear.

Agnosticism as long as I've heard it has mean that you don't know enough to determine one way or another where there is a God or not. An atheist asserts there is no God.

An atheist merely abstains from belief. They do not assert that God does NOT exist. — AmadeusD

This is either a belief or knowledge. To abstain from belief is because you rely on knowledge. To rely on belief is because you abstain from knowledge. Atheists know that God does not exist because there is no evidence for it. Just like I know magical unicorns don't exist, there's no evidence for it.

An agnostic is a person who remains unconvinced that there is enough evidence, or lack of evidence, to make an assertion one way or the other.

Agnosticism as long as I've heard it has mean that you don't know enough to determine one way or another where there is a God or not. An atheist asserts there is no God. — Philosophic

Like many atheists I do not say there is no god since that is a positive claim which requires demonstration. I find agnostic atheist to be a useful formulation for me but in general I am happy to be called an agnostic an atheist or a freethinker. As long as the idea that I have no belief in gods is understood.

"Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system" Ah, ok, so its knowledge then. — Philosophim

Amusing. No, it's not a belief system it's about one belief: Gods. There are atheists who are into reincarnation, astrology and all kinds of New Age stuff. So it doesn't always directly correlate with the secular humanist belief system - which is often the assumption.

from belief is because you rely on knowledge. To rely on belief is because you abstain from knowledge. Atheists know that God does not exist because there is no evidence for it. Just like I know magical unicorns don't exist, there's no evidence for it.

An agnostic is a person who remains unconvinced that there is enough evidence, or lack of evidence, to make an assertion one way or the other. — Philosophim

Suffice to say you are wrong here and just repeating the incorrect descriptions. Abstaining from belief requires no knowledge. It is precisely a lack of knowledge that leads one to abstain. No evidence? Ignored.

And as noted, an agnostic believes we cannot know if God/s exist.

If you don’t take these definitions, I’m unsure this is a worthwhile discussion. It seems to me you’re just in bad footing and proceeding badly just so

As Tom helpfully provide earlier in the https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/about-atheism/

You’ll note that this position is neutral.

Like many atheists I do not say there is no god since that is a positive claim which requires demonstration. — Tom Storm

You don't need to demonstrate that you know things because the evidence isn't adequate for it. I know that Zeus doesn't exist. Its not that I don't believe Zeus exists. It just seems like you're afraid of asserting something. Assert! No evidence = Know it doesn't exist

Seems like an unnecessary distortion of agnostic and atheism that causes confusion for someone who's not comfortable saying what they know.

Suffice to say you are wrong here and just repeating the incorrect descriptions. Abstaining from belief requires no knowledge. It is precisely a lack of knowledge that leads one to abstain. No evidence? Ignored. — AmadeusD

Yes, but you deciding to make a decision based on a lack of evidence is knowledge, not belief. Belief happens when you have incomplete knowledge, yet decide its the answer anyway. Its not that I don't believe there aren't little green men on the moon, I know there aren't. Not because I've been to the moon, but because no one has given me validated evidence that they exist on the moon.

Theists believe in God. Theists may claim they know God exists, but its never held up to any standard of knowledge, so becomes faith.

Atheists don't believe there isn't a God, they know there isn't a God because there's no evidence.

An agnostic does not know what to believe as they don't see enough evidence one way or the other to make an assertion.

I suppose after putting those definitions out, there is still the possibility that someone does not have enough evidence to know that a God doesn't exist, so some evidence that they one does exist, but believes they don't exist. Since there's no label for this individually, this must get swept up in the term atheist. Perhaps we need a new word.

Seems like an unnecessary distortion of agnostic and atheism that causes confusion for someone who's not comfortable saying what they know. — Philosophim

It's ok by me if you have problems with this. As an atheist, I find it useful. :wink:

Perhaps we need a new word. — Philosophim

You may be right about this.

Yes, but you deciding to make a decision based on a lack of evidence is knowledge, not belief. — Philosophim

What? No it isn’t. That’s entirely non sequitur. It’s a lack of knowledge of the existence of God/s. It is neutral. It is not a decision. It is in fact NOT making a choice abs living with uncertainty; awaiting further evidence. The agnostic doesn’t believe that evidence could exist

, I know there aren't. Not because I've been to the moon, but because no one has given me validated evidence that they exist on the moon. — Philosophim

No. You don’t “know”. You simply don’t believe it. This conception seems counter to all reasonable takes on “knowledge” or “belief”. Seems to conflate them for specifically the task of messing with the terms to fit your ideas. Again, suffice to say you are flat-out wrong about the two positions in question.

Are you a theist?

I’m sorry but repeating definitions that aren’t correct doesn’t help the position. I do believe this is now not a worthwhile discussion. You are merely repeating your incorrect definitions to support a fairly oblique point.

Agnostic: believes we can’t know whether God exists.
Atheist: does not believe God exists due to a LACK of evidence; (not believes God doesn’t exist.

You are describing anti-theism. It’s not fair to do this. Atheists do not agree with your shoehorned definition.

Not because I've been to the moon, but because no one has given me validated evidence that they exist on the moon. — Philosophim

I know that there are tons of things that I have never heard of nor experienced any evidence for, yet I do not claim they do not exist.

:ok:

What? No it isn’t. That’s entirely non sequitur. It’s a lack of knowledge of the existence of God/s. It is neutral. It is not a decision. It is in fact NOT making a decision. — AmadeusD

Odd how riled up you are over this. I'm an atheist. I know God doesn't exist. Its not that hard. You seem to be confusing that knowledge means you have the burden of proof. You do not need a burden of proof to know things don't exist. Its up to those who want to prove that something exists to have the burden of proof. I think this is more of an issue of "What is knowledge" than anything else.

I know that there are tons of things that I have never heard of nor experienced any evidence for, yet I do not claim they do not exist. — mentos987

Sure, but that is because you trust certain sources in society and there is no valid reason for you not to. That's your evidence. So if someone asked, "How do you know X", you would provide your proof as such. This does not negate my point.

Odd how riled up you are over this. I'm an atheist. I know God doesn't exist. Its not that hard. You seem to be confusing that knowledge means you have the burden of proof. You do not need a burden of proof to know things don't exist. Its up to those who want to prove that something exists to have the burden of proof. I think this is more of an issue of "What is knowledge" than anything else. — Philosophim

No it isnt. You’re wrong and I’m trying to explain it as simply as possible - but you’re literally ignoring the fact that your definitions are wrong.

Abstaining from belief requires no knowledge. I do not believe anything that I have no knowledge of. God fits there.
Sorry if that’s not how you feel. It is bizarre to me that you’re digging your heels in over something demonstrably incorrect.

So if someone asked, "How do you know X", you would provide your proof as such. This does not negate my point. — Philosophim

No, I would not claim I know there are no green men on the moon. But I would argue against it.

This is just a small matter of semantics, I do not know much to 100%. So, when I say, “I know” something I often mean that I am "extremely confident" of something.

I do not think you need to be even "extremely confident" about god not existing to be an atheist. I'd say that "fairly confident" will suffice.

Abstaining from belief requires no knowledge. Sorry if that’s not how you feel. — AmadeusD

Yes, that's what an agnostic does. They don't have enough evidence to make a decision either way. But this seems to be upsetting you. Have the last word, I won't reply this time.

So if someone asked, "How do you know X", you would provide your proof as such. This does not negate my point.
— Philosophim

No, I would not claim I know there are no green men on the moon. But I would argue against it. — mentos987

Now you're just switching up what I stated. If you claim to know something, you would do what I noted to proove that you know it. If you claim to not know it, then argue that there are no green men on the moon, you believe it.

oh my. This is unfortunate.

You are wrong in your definitions and I see no reason to entertain arguments based on them :) take care mate

. If you claim to not know it, then argue that there are no green men on the moon, you believe it. — Philosophim

Err nope. Arguing against the likelihood of something does not require knowledge that it “isn’t”. Your misinterpretations are starting to seem trollish

Now you're just switching up what I stated. If you claim to know something, you would do what I noted to proove that you know it. If you claim to not know it, then argue that there are no green men on the moon, you believe it. — Philosophim

When I hear people say they "know" something about religion I will automatically translate that to "believe", because religion is such an unknowable field. I do not think that atheists truly know that god does not exist, since it is too hard to prove.

Again, this is all just a matter of the degree of certainty that you assign to the word "know".

. If you claim to not know it, then argue that there are no green men on the moon, you believe it.
— Philosophim

Err nope. Arguing against the likelihood of something does not require knowledge that it “isn’t”. Your misinterpretations are starting to seem trollish — AmadeusD

And here I thought we had a nice parting of the ways. You're simply asserting, "I'm wrong" then calling me a troll. Control yourself and bow out of a conversation between myself and the other poster please.

When I hear people say they "know" something about religion I will automatically translate that to "believe", because religion is such an unknowable field. — mentos987

Agreed. I noted that earlier here.

Theists believe in God. Theists may claim they know God exists, but its never held up to any standard of knowledge, so becomes faith. — Philosophim

I do not think that atheists truly knows that god does not exist, since it is too hard to prove. — mentos987

You cannot prove a negative. Proving something requires what's called, "The burden of proof". Someone must present evidence of what they are claiming exists. To claim things don't exist requires no burden. Someone has the burden of proof to claim God exists, atheists do not have the burden of proof to claim something doesn't exist. Its not just God, its any topic.

I think it's fine for people to hold different views on this matter. As an atheist, I'm not significantly concerned about definitions and I know there are a range of strongly held positions. This might be why many people prefer to talk about weak and hard atheism. For them, it is a question of how confident you are in your disbelief in god. I feel the best I can say in this space is that I do not believe and that the existence of a god seems unlikely to me. To me the arguments in favour of the proposition are unconvincing.

Thanks for the discussion. I appreciate your perspective and understand why you are arguing for your position. I like your idea about finding a different word.

To claim things don't exist requires no burden. Someone has the burden of proof to claim God exists — Philosophim

Anyone is free to claim whatever they want. Knowing is another matter to me.

Consider this; scientists have spent the last 50 years trying to prove Einsteins theories. They are slowly finding that most of them are true. Does this mean that the theories were not true until we proved them true? Did we know them to be false until we proved them to be true?

And here I thought we had a nice parting of the ways. You're simply asserting, "I'm wrong" then calling me a troll. Control yourself and bow out of a conversation between myself and the another poster please. — Philosophim

No. I adequately showed you position to be entirely incorrect viz a viz the definition and use of the two terms and if you looked at the etymologies that would have been obvious from the get go. I provided you the citation for the definition of atheism and yet you continue to espouse an entirely incorrect one in that light.

As Tom nicely points out, anyone can have any view they want about thing. But we do have “wrong” views and claims. In this case I do not think your position is justified and I don’t see any need for a new words

At the very least, if you accepted the definitions that are actually used for those terms, the ambiguity would disappear and the words would already (and they do!) serve the purpose your trying to reinvent the wheel for. Imo

Anyone is free to claim whatever they want. Knowing is another matter to me. — mentos987

:ok:

Also to note I enjoy the discussions no matter how obvious the positions appear to me. I am in no way seeing you in some kind of lower stead @Philosophim - I just cannot understand how it’s possible to claim what you’re claiming in light of the facts. No significant emotion involved

Who's calling themselves an agnostic atheist? — Philosophim

The New Atheists.

That's just misunderstanding the definition of the terms. — Philosophim

Glad somebody realizes it.

You cannot prove a negative. Proving something requires what's called, "The burden of proof". Someone must present evidence of what they are claiming exists. To claim things don't exist requires no burden. — Philosophim

Do you think matter that travels faster than the speed of light can exist?

An atheist merely abstains from belief. They do not assert that God does NOT exist.

An agnostic believes/thinks we can’t know if God exists.

They can co-exist in one entity. — AmadeusD

All of this was proven wrong in the OP. What's your reason for thinking atheists do not assert God does not exist? And what do you call someone who does, other than "atheist"?

Anyone is free to claim whatever they want. Knowing is another matter to me.

Consider this; scientists have spent the last 50 years trying to prove Einsteins theories. They are slowly finding that most of them are true. Does this mean that the theories were not true until we proved them true? Did we know them to be false until we proved them to be true? — mentos987

Truth exists despite our knowledge of it. They are not the same thing. I can know physics today, but there may be aspects of it that aren't true which we discover 100 years from now. On the flip side, I could believe that a one eyed being watches my every move because I dreamed it, and it were true. I wouldn't have knowledge of it though, it would simply be a belief.

At the very least, if you accepted the definitions that are actually used for those terms, the ambiguity would disappear and the words would already (and they do!) serve the purpose your trying to reinvent the wheel for. — AmadeusD

I could say exactly the same thing back. You're just asserting you are correct because you believe you are correct. When I disagreed with reasons, you just got upset. If enjoy conversations with people who have different ideas than you, act like it. You can disagree with respect and not get upset at the other poster. Well, unless they start insulting you first, then have at it.

Forgiven, just don't do it again.

Do you think matter that travels faster than the speed of light can exist? — Hallucinogen

I know there is no matter that can travel faster than light as of today. I believe we might find something in the future.

All of this was proven wrong in the OP. What's your reason for thinking atheists do not assert God does not exist? And what do you call someone who does, other than "atheist"? — Hallucinogen

No. No it wasn’t.

These are th positions. And the actual atheists of the world know this. You can’t te them what their view is. And the citation has been provided more than once.

They are anti-theists.

Just bloody look at the words lol.

A-theism literally means not theism. It doesn’t contain anything close to a positive claim. It is a rejection of an u justified belief and nothing more.

Anti-theism. That there is NOT deities.

I understand people see things differently but his is like claiming the sun is dark. It is by definition, not.

I could say exactly the same thing back. You're just asserting you are correct because you believe you are correct. When I disagreed with reasons, you just got upset. If enjoy conversations with people who have different ideas than you, act like it. You can disagree with respect and not get upset at the other poster. Well, unless they start insulting you first, then have at it.

Forgiven, just don't do it again. — Philosophim

Ah you seem to just be here for a conflict now.

This is inaccurate. Your arguments are based on inaccuracies. I pointed these out and you did not address them. I literally do not care how you go about processing that. It is not up to me.
I have disagreed with respect. And in fact If you had read my comment fully, you’d see. this was explicitly stated to avoid a bogus retort like this. Sigh. I have addressed your arguments. Not you. The fact that to my mind you are outright, inarguably wrong, is something YOU need to process with respect.

However, I take this particular comment to be an attempt to shift the argument to a personal one and I’m not taking that bait.

Words have meaning. Etymologies matter. Simply saying “I’m going to make up and use my own definitions” doesn’t fly. So perhaps this is best left alone if that’s the MO.

So perhaps this is best left alone if that’s the MO. — AmadeusD

The wisest words you've said here. Another conversation, another time.

righteous :wink:

I know there is no matter that can travel faster than light as of today. I believe we might find something in the future. — Philosophim

But the Lorentz transformations, which are what constrains matter to travelling below the speed of light, aren't derived from empirical evidence or subject to data that is variable. They're derived from the postulate that the laws of physics are invariant (necessary for science to be consistent with itself) along with mathematical modeling.

As long as that's accepted, then we can prove that certain forms of matter don't exist, which is tantamount to "proving a negative".