I did see that.  That's not my point.  I don't care about dictionary definitions used as support of an argument.  That's a polemic.  I am well within my rights to disagree with it, even if you think that makes me stupid.  I think it makes you closed-minded.

I would rather see "a set of definitions in use on this board" that explains what weak and strong atheism and agnosticism, and other words like deism, panentheism, pantheism, polytheism and so on, are used to refer to.  And if you want to put in there that atheism technically refers to weak atheism, I say go for it; that is correct.  It's just not common knowledge, but if you want to educate people before they start posting about the correct terminology for this field, I think that's laudible.

On the reverse hand, demanding that I accept your contention - which is not at all widely held in philosophical circles, so much so that I've never even heard it before - that agnosticism is best described as weak atheism strikes me as authoritarian.  I don't accept that contention; I believe you're incorrect.  "So sue me."  I have that right.

Saying that I'm a/n [weak] a-theist would imply that I am without knowledge of God.  "I don't believe in God because there is no compelling proof."  Saying that I'm a strong atheist would imply that I assert there is no God.  "I definitely believe there is not a God." Saying I'm a theist would imply that I assert that there is a God.  "I definitely believe in God."  I believe a deist is something like a weak atheist, but in reverse.  "I don't believe there is no God because there is no compelling proof."  These are all statements of belief about what evidence is available.

Saying that I'm an agnostic does not imply any of those things.  I am not claiming I am with or without knowledge of God.  I am claiming that I have an ambiguous, undecided and even "undecidable" relationship to the question of whether I am with or without knowledge of God.  I am claiming that I believe the question cannot be answered, at least by any rational means, and that I am not going to try.  "I don't believe anything in particular except that I am too small and stupid in the grand scheme of things to answer such lofty questions."

I am not claiming "just" what weak atheists claim, which is that I am without knowledge of God.  I am claiming that I am without knowledge as to whether I am with or without knowledge of God.  Do you see the distinction?  I am also claiming a more general disinterest in answering fanciful questions that exceed the realm of human knowledge using my reason.

Well, I kinda had Elvis or Curt Cobain in mind but yah, MJ works as well.

So would you mind if we all got wasted in stickcam some time?

The only functional issue that I see is that atheistextremeist lives on the other side of the world. So we probably have to do this on a Sunday morning. But let's not pretend that we have to go to church or something.

I would literally argue with a wall if it could talk back to me but this one idk about. It's making me wish I had a percoset.

Did you notice I also used the word belief?  Can you imagine that everything I said was carefully worded and thought out, and that what you're saying is something I've understood for at least 15 years?  That this is all "basic" to me?  Is it possible for you to imagine that?

Do YOU not understand that there is an overlap between the things you know and the things you believe?  Do you believe the things you know?

This really isn't as complicated as you're making it.  My belief about the existence of God is agnostic.  I don't know.  I am not saying that I believe there is a God, or that there's not.  I'm not saying I disbelieve in God, or that I don't.  I am not making any kind of claim, at all.  I am saying that I believe that I don't know.  I don't believe anything else beyond that.

So why would it make more sense to say I'm an atheist?  I would have to say I'm an a-atheist at the same time.  And so on!  It's not my position that I don't believe in God.  It's not my position that there is or isn't enough evidence.  My position, what I believe, is that I haven't got any idea.

You sound like my husband two years ago.  And for the 24 years before that.  Then we read - we share library books very often - 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a God by Guy P. Harrison.  When my husband finished it, he said he was no longer an agnostic in the exact sense "I am without knowledge as to whether I am with or without knowledge of God" to "I am an atheist". 

If you have already read it and it didn't impress you, -- 

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_1_9?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=50+reasons+people+give+for+believing+in+a+...

Soooo, a neutral position [atheism=without belief in god(s)] is too strong of a statement.

Yes, I am insulting. This conversation is insulting. Your entire viewpoint is insulting and yet I have decided to engage you, to respond to you in as rational a manner as possible.

Why?

Because I BELIEVE you have the capability to comprehend. I don't KNOW that you will. If I did not BELIEVE you had the capability to comprehend then I would still NOT KNOW if you will.

Et voila!

It's quick, short chapters that are not connected to each other.  Something easy to relax with for 1/2 hour if you need a little down time.  I guess you could say it was logical - but not in the sense of philosophical argumentation.  More in the sense of practicality.  And the author interviewed a lot of believing people before he wrote the book, so he isn't guessing what other people think.  They told him what they think.

I don't think "left-brained" is an insult.  I don't think "right-brained" is a complement.  Do you know the genetics and implications of handedness?  You can guess I'm going to tell you what I know.

Someone researched African Grey parrots.  They had noticed that many animals showed a distinct preference for handedness.  African Greys are predominately left-handed, the opposite of humans.  If the parrot has the gene for left-handedness, they are obligate left-handers.  If they do not have that gene, they may be left, right, or ambidextrous.

It is the same for humans but opposite hand.  If you have the right-handed gene, you are obligate right-handed.  If you don't have that gene, you may be left, right, or ambidextrous.  If you have the right-handed gene, your brain is obligate left brain dominant.  If you don't have the gene, your brain could be left, right, or dominant across both hemispheres.  Cool, huh?

I'm left-handed.  And as near as I can tell without the fancy fMRI and other imaging techniques, I share dominance across both hemispheres.  My dad started left handed, but when in the third grade, he was forced to use his right hand to write with.  My dad is truly ambidextrous.  When he signed his name, there was only a very slight difference in slant.  If you hadn't compared the right signature with the left signature side by side, you couldn't tell the difference.  He could use any implement with either hand, eat with either hand and had won Rifle and Pistol sharpshooter medals in the Army for both right and left hands.  I am strongly left-handed.  I can't do but one or two things with my right hand - fortunately typing is one thing I have managed to train myself to be two-handed.  But, I have always excelled at reading and comprehension - definitely a left brain function.

Oh, you thought right brain was artistic and left brain was anal retentive?  Sometimes.  It's an over simplified concept.  You can be right handed and artistic, left handed and an accountant.  You train your neurons all the time by the activities you choose.  Just like stoke victims can retrain their brain so they can walk or talk or read even if the original section of the brain associated with that activity becomes injured.  Call me left-brained?  meh.  Call me right-brained?  meh.  I'm both, I'm neither, and there are more important things in the world.

cj -

I'm not using being left-brained as an insult.  I'm using being exclusively left-brained as a criticism.

I'm using it as a short-hand.  Again, I'm sorry, but you weren't providing me with any new information.

Froodley, here are some threads in which these issues have been addressed in some manner:

Chaospump and Fire Legion argue that agnostic is a middle ground between atheism and theism.

Shaunphilly holds a Masters in Philosophy and here he explains the definition of atheism.

Rook Hawkins writes about agnosticism and it's many misconceptions.

Babies are born atheist.

Here an atheist brings into question an improper definition of atheism.

The middle of disbelief and belief, a discussion about it.

I never admitted any sort of fallacy.  I admitted I was using the common definition of atheism, which I don't at all think was inappropriate as there only seem to be about three people in this room who even know what we're talking about.  And I admitted I was being a jerk, but that was on purpose, although I really wish I hadn't bothered.

You have tried many, many things.  Have you tried reconsidering your point of view?

Sapient -

I have to be honest; I feel like we've already covered the whole thing and everything there really is to say about it, and I understand your position but I think you're incorrect.  I don't have time to read all of those posts; they're very long.  I read a good bit of the first one, and it didn't cover anything new.

The central point I'm trying to make, which no one has addressed, is that agnosis is a larger perspective than merely a response to theism and strong atheism.  It expresses a general inability to answer metaphysical questions.  It is at least as much "a-strong atheism" and "a-panentheism" and so on as it is "a-theism."  It would not be sensible to describe myself as an atheist; it would obscure an enormous amount of information that I could easily relate by calling myself an agnostic.  Why would I choose an inferior, restricted concept over one that is more useful to me?

Call yourself agnostic, I don't care, that was never in question.  What was at issue was you acting like a jerk as you proclaimed to know what people who call themselves both atheist and agnostic believe or know.  Furthermore to answer your question more specifically, if I ask you do you believe in god and you say you're agnostic, you haven't answered the question.  Answering agnostic would answer a question I didn't ask, not that I'd ask you.  I figured out a long while back that you were projecting in your first post when you called us "weaksauce."  You are the weaksauce.

That was the point, wasn't it?  This conversation is old - and repetitive.

You think there is any information in metaphysics to be lost? 

This far in and you still have no idea. 

I AM AGNOSTIC!

I'm not even gonna explain why you are weak, you won't get it.

I heard you the first time, on the first page.

I'm going to assert that again we are coming up against the same issue: there is a conflation of two meanings of the word agnostic going on here.  Big A and little a agnosticism.  Big A Agnosticism is a belief statement; littlle a agnosticism is an epistemological caveat.

Yay, finally something new out of all this crap.

By not answering the question... you have answered the question.

Belief is assertion. If you do not assert then you are without belief ergo a-whatever-ism

I think I understand where you are coming from, but if you want me to be your kind of open-minded then you're going to have to step toward it with me.

Neither of us knows ergo agnostic. All that we have asserted is that we do not know. In other words, we believe we do not know, which is fallacious. Why? Because the two are disparate nouns. Belief is nothing more than assertion, while knowledge is evidenced. That is why they can't logically be in the same inference as above (i.e. belief that we do not know)

It is simply nonsensical to answer the question : "Do you believe in god?" with "I believe I don't know." If you answer "I don't know if I believe or not." then you are an atheist because you lack(i.e. without) a positive position of belief. Of course, you are still agnostic, but in this instance it is designated an adjective to describe atheist.

e.g. I believe in god = theist

I don't know if I believe in god or not = agnostic atheist

I don't believe in god = atheist

What the fuck is the question? = agnostic atheist

The only logically tenable instance of using the word 'agnostic' is someone who is ignorant of the definition of belief. i.e. What is belief? And lo and be-fucking-hold answers.com says:

belief

n.

1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons

All of which contain positive statements or assertions. placing confidence, conviction in, accepted are all base assertions. Once someone lacks the input of belief it is a-whatever-ism.

Do you see this? Or are you just going to scream that we just 'don't get you' some more?

Well shit. Pastor Gwinn is just going to have to wait a day for my response to the mosque argument. After a day of this bullshit, I couldn't be nice to him in an e-mail and I don't feel like editing anything I write tonight. Satisfied?

froodley - keeping theism safe with cries for attention since August

I'm also following the etymology of the words:

agnostic - comes from Greek a (no) + gnosis (knowledge)

atheism - also from Greek a(no) + theos (god) +i sm (belief)

As I said, I know you have no knowledge of God. Neither do I.

What do you believe? Or are you saying you believe in not having knowledge?

He's argued both.

FWIW: I didn't respond last time because I had nothing nice to say.

That's nice, dear. Now take your prize nd go home.

Oooh. That's funny..

I like this one. We gotta keep you around, Tadgh.

In a way, I'm glad this thread was created and active while some new members such as yourself joined the site.

It illustrates the form and functionality of the site while allowing us to display a perfect anecdote of the type of individuals to whom we respond.

Welcome to our 'small' world.

*froodley's position can't stand scrutiny so he wants the atheists to remove him so he can claim "persecution"*

When one avenue is ineffective...