If we say "not *your* God"?

[NewToLife]

When you say 'reject' do you mean to say we have the view "nope, never, absolutely 100% sure that God doesn't exist"?
I only have such views when the formulations of people's Gods that are sufficiently defined to me can be demonstrated as incoherrent.
I say it doesn't imply that I reject ALL gods. I simply don't accept (albeit tending strongly towards rejection) the theist notion of some particular god (whatever it may be).
I suppose you might argue that if you kept presenting me with particular gods ad-infinitum I would eventually reject all of them. This would be false of course because you could only ever present to me a finite number of gods that you, as something not living in the dimensions where such gods might reside, have somehow defined.
If there is a god I see no reason why it should behave or be any way similar to what you think it should.

There is no actual or real difference between the assertion that you do not believe a claim and an assertion that you believe a claim to be false. Attempts to claim lack of belief are simply a failure on the part of those making them to consider the logic of their position fully. There is a reason that atheists who try this line in academic debate ( in order to try and dodge any burden of proof ) inevitably get hung out to dry and that reason is quite simply that the arguement is a logical non starter.

I say create entity because if the universe was 'created' as opposed to an infinite number of big bangs/crunches or one particular universe spawned from a multiverse; then I have no reason to assert aything about this entity that did the creating. For all I know it could be a magic pot
No semantic traps

I dont actually even understand your original question in light of your clarification. It seems random to put it mildly given that you are simply refusing to use the term God ( in at least a deist sense ) where it is normally used.

 

[NewToLife]

When you say 'reject' do you mean to say we have the view "nope, never, absolutely 100% sure that God doesn't exist"?
I only have such views when the formulations of people's Gods that are sufficiently defined to me can be demonstrated as incoherrent.
I say it doesn't imply that I reject ALL gods. I simply don't accept (albeit tending strongly towards rejection) the theist notion of some particular god (whatever it may be).
I suppose you might argue that if you kept presenting me with particular gods ad-infinitum I would eventually reject all of them. This would be false of course because you could only ever present to me a finite number of gods that you, as something not living in the dimensions where such gods might reside, have somehow defined.
If there is a god I see no reason why it should behave or be any way similar to what you think it should.

There is no actual or real difference between the assertion that you do not believe a claim and an assertion that you believe a claim to be false. Attempts to claim lack of belief are simply a failure on the part of those making them to consider the logic of their position fully. There is a reason that atheists who try this line in academic debate ( in order to try and dodge any burden of proof ) inevitably get hung out to dry and that reason is quite simply that the arguement is a logical non starter.

I say create entity because if the universe was 'created' as opposed to an infinite number of big bangs/crunches or one particular universe spawned from a multiverse; then I have no reason to assert aything about this entity that did the creating. For all I know it could be a magic pot
No semantic traps

I dont actually even understand your original question in light of your clarification. It seems random to put it mildly given that you are simply refusing to use the term God ( in at least a deist sense ) where it is normally used.

 

[Grega]

Any decent etymology text or site will suffice as your source. For instance;

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=atheist

As for moot points you are again simply incorrect, normal usage outside of the attempts of atheist activists to redefine the term still aligns with the original etymology rather than Anthony Flew's attempted redefinition. An atheist is a person who denies God he is not simply someone who lacks theism. Etymology is not altered by accepted usage in any case, only meaning can be and the claim that atheist is from a-theist is an etymological claim which should be obvious if you think it through.

Ok...thankyou for the source. But we seem to stand at 2 different sides of a ravine here.
You stand on yours to shift your own burden of proof on to us by painting us atheists as those who thoroughly and positively assert there exists no gods. Yes if we made such assertions we would indeed have such a burden. But the simple fact is we don't (apart from the foolish that is).

With regards to the history and derivation of words it is slightly irrelevant a point since important is how these words are understood in contemporary usage. If I were to make the statement "some Christians are gay" you would (I suspect) take the modern meaning of that word "gay" as opposed to its historical and different meaning. The vast majority of those who claim to be atheists don't adopt the medieval definitions you follow.

On my side, I'm simply trying to show you that we don't positively claim no gods exist. Furthermore if memory serves me correctly when we state our positions on the nature of religion in these forums (ie: those little icons we have) we don't get to choose weak atheist or agnostic tending strongly towards atheism so we choose the best approximation which is atheism. Furthermore in general conversation it is more economical to call oneself an atheist to suggest "they don't believe in God"

 

[Grega]

There is no actual or real difference between the assertion that you do not believe a claim and an assertion that you believe a claim to be false. Attempts to claim lack of belief are simply a failure on the part of those making them to consider the logic of their position fully. There is a reason that atheists who try this line in academic debate ( in order to try and dodge any burden of proof ) inevitably get hung out to dry and that reason is quite simply that the arguement is a logical non starter.



I dont actually even understand your original question in light of your clarification. It seems random to put it mildly given that you are simply refusing to use the term God ( in at least a deist sense ) where it is normally used.

There is no actual or real difference between the assertion that you do not believe a claim and an assertion that you believe a claim to be false. Attempts to claim lack of belief are simply a failure on the part of those making them to consider the logic of their position fully. There is a reason that atheists who try this line in academic debate ( in order to try and dodge any burden of proof ) inevitably get hung out to dry and that reason is quite simply that the arguement is a logical non starter.
Wrong. You are committing the false dilemma fallacy
http://www.onegoodmove.org/fallacy/fd.htm
To not believe God exists isn't the same as believing God does not exist.

I dont actually even understand your original question in light of your clarification. It seems random to put it mildly given that you are simply refusing to use the term God ( in at least a deist sense ) where it is normally used.
I don't like the words "God" or "god" because it leads most people to automatically attach to this word the notion of a personal higher being. I choose to disassociate myself from such notions.
When I say creater entity it should be taken to mean little more than 'something' that created the universe. The hidden implication here is that the existence of this 'entity' would not bound to this universe if it were the creator of such.

 

[ephraimanesti]

In other words you are hedging your bets "just in case."
Nope...I'm quite sure 'your' god doesn't exist

MY BROTHER--You are correct. "MY" god doesn't exist as such--He is OUR God, there being only One.

Given my spiritual myopia and damaged brain cells, i am sure that "my" view of God--even with the help of His written Word and the Holy Spirit--is far from complete, and i am only seeing Him through the glass VERY darkly.(I Cor 13:12) However, my handicaps aside, i do see Him. May He, in His Grace, grant that the clarity increase--for both of us.

A BOND-SLAVE/FRIEND/BROTHER OF OUR LORD/GOD/SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST,
ephraim

 

[70x7]

Thats a misconception...to say one is an atheist is to say they are not a theist
Where theism is defined as
the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theist

to be an atheist is to negate that view ie:
not the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation
This is different from:
The belief that no gods exist


Similarly if we define "redballist" to mean belief that red balls are best, to say one is an aredballist would be to say they are of the position "not red balls are best" from which you can infer only that an aredballist doesn't agree that red balls are best.

Ill let you debate it with Webster ok?

 

[Grega]

Ill let you debate it with Webster ok?

As I said to newtolife, one reason why we call ourselves atheists (especially in these forums) is for economy/efficiency/accuracy. It best matches our position in that we "don't believe God exists", whilst it is generally true that most of us don't positively assert that "there exist no gods".

It helps your position to slanderously say we all claim "gods don't exist" such that you can wriggle away from the requirement to justify the positive claims you make (given that you press them upon folks, those who proselytise etc...)

 

[NewToLife]

Ok...thankyou for the source. But we seem to stand at 2 different sides of a ravine here.
You stand on yours to shift your own burden of proof on to us by painting us atheists as those who thoroughly and positively assert there exists no gods. Yes if we made such assertions we would indeed have such a burden. But the simple fact is we don't (apart from the foolish that is).

Hmmm, then you are effectively denying your own atheism in favour of agnosticism. If you want to communicate you probably need to use language as it normally is as opposed to how a small group attempt to manipulate it for advantage. In general usage atheism is disbelief in God not lack of belief. If it were lack of belief then babies and indeed inanimate objects would be atheists yet no one actually maintains that they are.

With regards to the history and derivation of words it is slightly irrelevant a point since important is how these words are understood in contemporary usage. If I were to make the statement "some Christians are gay" you would (I suspect) take the modern meaning of that word "gay" as opposed to its historical and different meaning. The vast majority of those who claim to be atheists don't adopt the medieval definitions you follow.

Firstly I note that you werte happy to claim a false etymology yourself when you thought advantage were to be had, yet suddenly it is irrelevent as soon as it works against you. Special pleading?

Secondly, I know full well that atheist activists are attempting to redefine the word to hijack the agnostic position yet plainly atheists do not determine the words meaning, the society as a whole does and it still rejects your attempts to redefine it in order to dodge the burden of proof and/or establish atheism as a default. As an example I have agnostic friends, if I refer to them as atheist they object because the term mischaracterises their position, they and others understand that they are agnostic yet according to you they are atheists. Indeed your definition would make babies atheists yet I know not one person who would apply the label atheist to babies.

Thirdly, you should probably refrain from weak spin such as characterising current usage as medieval, aside of anything else the definition you would like to use was unheard of even well within the last century and has never had real currency in normal usage.

On my side, I'm simply trying to show you that we don't positively claim no gods exist.

Then you claim not to hold a position on the question 'Does a god exist', plainly if that is the case you are not an atheist by any normal use of the word. The position you describe is in common usage defined as agnosticism not atheism.

Furthermore if memory serves me correctly when we state our positions on the nature of religion in these forums (ie: those little icons we have) we don't get to choose weak atheist or agnostic tending strongly towards atheism so we choose the best approximation which is atheism. Furthermore in general conversation it is more economical to call oneself an atheist to suggest "they don't believe in God"

I think you need to make up your mind, you are now admitting that the word atheist in common usage does not in fact mean 'lack of theism' but instead suggests that atheists "dont believe in God", not only is this new definition contradictory of your previous claims but it is also very very weak ( at least if you intend God to be the Christain God ) in that it makes Hindus and indeed countless other theists atheist.

 

[NewToLife]

There is no actual or real difference between the assertion that you do not believe a claim and an assertion that you believe a claim to be false. Attempts to claim lack of belief are simply a failure on the part of those making them to consider the logic of their position fully. There is a reason that atheists who try this line in academic debate ( in order to try and dodge any burden of proof ) inevitably get hung out to dry and that reason is quite simply that the arguement is a logical non starter.
Wrong. You are committing the false dilemma fallacy
http://www.onegoodmove.org/fallacy/fd.htm
To not believe God exists isn't the same as believing God does not exist.

Nice switch, I said nothing of merely believing but spoke of making assertions, I'm afraid false dichotomy wont fly here because its aimed squarely at a strawman. Plainly speaking, in the English language, if you assert that you do not believe a claim you effectively assert that you believe the claim false, this has little to do with any false dichotomy and a lot to do with grammar.

Just to drive the point home here are some examples;

"I don't believe the bus has arrived" means "I believe the bus has not arrived". It doesn't mean that I don't have any beliefs about the bus arriving.

"I do not believe we missed the last post" means "I believe we did not miss the last post". It does not mean that I don't have any beliefs about missing the last post.

"I don't believe in the existence of gods" means "I believe that gods do not exist". It does not mean that I don't have any beliefs about the existence of gods.

You could of course have a real absense of belief, as you note there are not only 2 options on the question of belief, yet that would inevitably preclude making such statements and atheist activists almost inevitably do make such statements. Indeed merely calling oneself an atheist effectively makes such a statement.

I don't like the words "God" or "god" because it leads most people to automatically attach to this word the notion of a personal higher being. I choose to disassociate myself from such notions.

You seem to have problems with language, the word God does not necessarily imply what you say, indeed if it did deists would not be able to believe in God yet plainly they do. As for using words according to your tastes rather than accepted usage, well I guess you are free to call an apple an orange but you have no real right to object when people note that your communication is reduced to giberrish by such choices.

When I say creater entity it should be taken to mean little more than 'something' that created the universe. The hidden implication here is that the existence of this 'entity' would not bound to this universe if it were the creator of such.

Again, your refusal to use terms as they are normally used hinders any real understanding. Are you an Edward Lear fan by any chance?

 

[Grega]

Hmmm, then you are effectively denying your own atheism in favour of agnosticism. If you want to communicate you probably need to use language as it normally is as opposed to how a small group attempt to manipulate it for advantage. In general usage atheism is disbelief in God not lack of belief. If it were lack of belief then babies and indeed inanimate objects would be atheists yet no one actually maintains that they are.



Firstly I note that you werte happy to claim a false etymology yourself when you thought advantage were to be had, yet suddenly it is irrelevent as soon as it works against you. Special pleading?

Secondly, I know full well that atheist activists are attempting to redefine the word to hijack the agnostic position yet plainly atheists do not determine the words meaning, the society as a whole does and it still rejects your attempts to redefine it in order to dodge the burden of proof and/or establish atheism as a default. As an example I have agnostic friends, if I refer to them as atheist they object because the term mischaracterises their position, they and others understand that they are agnostic yet according to you they are atheists. Indeed your definition would make babies atheists yet I know not one person who would apply the label atheist to babies.

Thirdly, you should probably refrain from weak spin such as characterising current usage as medieval, aside of anything else the definition you would like to use was unheard of even well within the last century and has never had real currency in normal usage.



Then you claim not to hold a position on the question 'Does a god exist', plainly if that is the case you are not an atheist by any normal use of the word. The position you describe is in common usage defined as agnosticism not atheism.



I think you need to make up your mind, you are now admitting that the word atheist in common usage does not in fact mean 'lack of theism' but instead suggests that atheists "dont believe in God", not only is this new definition contradictory of your previous claims but it is also very very weak ( at least if you intend God to be the Christain God ) in that it makes Hindus and indeed countless other theists atheist.

Hmmm, then you are effectively denying your own atheism in favour of agnosticism. If you want to communicate you probably need to use language as it normally is as opposed to how a small group attempt to manipulate it for advantage. In general usage atheism is disbelief in God not lack of belief. If it were lack of belief then babies and indeed inanimate objects would be atheists yet no one actually maintains that they are.
To not believe in any god is the default position, so yes, plant pots, ashtrays, and babies would be best described by some word that captured this detail if one wanted to be pedantic. Coincidently the 'large group that won't budge from their archaic definition of the word atheism seem to be...well who'd have thought! theists!

Firstly I note that you werte happy to claim a false etymology yourself when you thought advantage were to be had, yet suddenly it is irrelevent as soon as it works against you. Special pleading?
No...I was shown to be wrong (be sure to make a big deal of that in your next response ;) ), and that in its derivation 'a' did not prefix it to negate theism as I'd first thought. Still doesn't detract from the point that the majority if us 'atheists' don't agree with this currently accepted definition.
You're quibbling over a label, we're quibbling over our world view. Which is more profound?


Secondly, I know full well that atheist activists are attempting to redefine the word to hijack the agnostic position yet plainly atheists do not determine the words meaning, the society as a whole does and it still rejects your attempts to redefine it in order to dodge the burden of proof and/or establish atheism as a default. As an example I have agnostic friends, if I refer to them as atheist they object because the term mischaracterises their position, they and others understand that they are agnostic yet according to you they are atheists. Indeed your definition would make babies atheists yet I know not one person who would apply the label atheist to babies.
"Agnostic" as the position: "I don't know" is far too weak "Atheistic" (as you would define it) is slightly too strong, for it is intellectually dishonest to claim there are no gods. We (apart from strong atheists) grant there is some possibility (considered small on our part) that a god may exist but operate as though there was not.
If I did not care to give a 20+ word description of my religious world view then your definition of the word would be the best 'approximation'. Amongst my peers however, what I mean is well understood.

Furthermore about babies, (Your own little strawman eh?...ooh look at its cute little straw arms!) it isn't really correct to talk about their religious views until they are old enough to decide them for themselves. But if you wanted to be pedantic then as I said above "atheist" (as we define it to be the negation of theism, so to prevent equivocation on your part) is the way to go!

Thirdly, you should probably refrain from weak spin such as characterising current usage as medieval, aside of anything else the definition you would like to use was unheard of even well within the last century and has never had real currency in normal usage.
Ah special pleading on your part now eh? That word has a lot more currency with its homosexual meaning than its old definition ;)

Then you claim not to hold a position on the question 'Does a god exist', plainly if that is the case you are not an atheist by any normal use of the word. The position you describe is in common usage defined as agnosticism not atheism.
No, it would be you that makes such a claim. Given that the concensus amongst us atheists is that we have a pretty specific position, you have the option of attacking the label we use, or our positon itself. You choose the former.

I think you need to make up your mind, you are now admitting that the word atheist in common usage does not in fact mean 'lack of theism' but instead suggests that atheists "dont believe in God", not only is this new definition contradictory of your previous claims but it is also very very weak ( at least if you intend God to be the Christain God ) in that it makes Hindus and indeed countless other theists atheist.
But I have been shown to be wrong!...what else should I do other than acknowledge it and move on???
That aside 'common' usage is that which theists (of which there is currently the greater number) would use as a smoke bomb to distract us.
But in spite of this, I know what I am, as do my peers.

 

[Grega]

Nice switch, I said nothing of merely believing but spoke of making assertions, I'm afraid false dichotomy wont fly here because its aimed squarely at a strawman. Plainly speaking, in the English language, if you assert that you do not believe a claim you effectively assert that you believe the claim false, this has little to do with any false dichotomy and a lot to do with grammar.

Just to drive the point home here are some examples;

"I don't believe the bus has arrived" means "I believe the bus has not arrived". It doesn't mean that I don't have any beliefs about the bus arriving.

"I do not believe we missed the last post" means "I believe we did not miss the last post". It does not mean that I don't have any beliefs about missing the last post.

"I don't believe in the existence of gods" means "I believe that gods do not exist". It does not mean that I don't have any beliefs about the existence of gods.

You could of course have a real absense of belief, as you note there are not only 2 options on the question of belief, yet that would inevitably preclude making such statements and atheist activists almost inevitably do make such statements. Indeed merely calling oneself an atheist effectively makes such a statement.



You seem to have problems with language, the word God does not necessarily imply what you say, indeed if it did deists would not be able to believe in God yet plainly they do. As for using words according to your tastes rather than accepted usage, well I guess you are free to call an apple an orange but you have no real right to object when people note that your communication is reduced to giberrish by such choices.



Again, your refusal to use terms as they are normally used hinders any real understanding. Are you an Edward Lear fan by any chance?

Nice switch, I said nothing of merely believing but spoke of making assertions, I'm afraid false dichotomy wont fly here because its aimed squarely at a strawman. Plainly speaking, in the English language, if you assert that you do not believe a claim you effectively assert that you believe the claim false, this has little to do with any false dichotomy and a lot to do with grammar.
As a mathematician (in training) it would seem I'm pretty bugg.ered then with this definition. If I assert I don't believe proposition X (yet) I am asserting X is false???

Just to drive the point home here are some examples;

"I don't believe the bus has arrived" means "I believe the bus has not arrived". It doesn't mean that I don't have any beliefs about the bus arriving.

"I do not believe we missed the last post" means "I believe we did not miss the last post". It does not mean that I don't have any beliefs about missing the last post.

"I don't believe in the existence of gods" means "I believe that gods do not exist". It does not mean that I don't have any beliefs about the existence of gods.
In all of these you are setting up strawmen for the smackdown they deserve. (go get em tiger...RAGGHHHH! ;) )
As atheists we don't claim to have 'no' beliefs we claim we see no reason to believe those claims made by theists

You could of course have a real absense of belief, as you note there are not only 2 options on the question of belief, yet that would inevitably preclude making such statements and atheist activists almost inevitably do make such statements. Indeed merely calling oneself an atheist effectively makes such a statement.
make 'what' statements please?

You seem to have problems with language, the word God does not necessarily imply what you say, indeed if it did deists would not be able to believe in God yet plainly they do. As for using words according to your tastes rather than accepted usage, well I guess you are free to call an apple an orange but you have no real right to object when people note that your communication is reduced to giberrish by such choices.
True, it need not necessarily imply that it is a personal god, I just find that all to often this is the inference drawn. 'God' is a bit like 'art', it is a fuzzy term that changes its meaning from person to person.

Again, your refusal to use terms as they are normally used hinders any real understanding. Are you an Edward Lear fan by any chance?
By the same token, your enthusiasm to caricature a persons position to serve your own ends hinders any profitable discourse. Are you a Kent Hovind fan by any chance?

 

[Apodictic]

Hello Grega,

Hopefully this question falls under the topic in some broader sense.

What is the distinction between an Agnostic and Atheist belief?

What you have stated here sounds like what many Agnostic people claim to believe. But I was wondering what your take on the distinction is.

Thanks! God Bless!

 

[Grega]

Hello Grega,

Hopefully this question falls under the topic in some broader sense.

What is the distinction between an Agnostic and Atheist belief?

What you have stated here sounds like what many Agnostic people claim to believe. But I was wondering what your take on the distinction is.

Thanks! God Bless!

Well an agnostic would hear your claim that God exists and assert that he holds the middle ground in that he simply doesn't know either way whether this is true or not.
An atheist (as we would define it) would hear that same claim and assert that he does not believe that God exists, but the extent to which he does not believe is stronger, much stronger than that of agnostics. Though because we realise that we can't actually know or devise any experiments to determine whether or whether they [gods] don't exist, (any 'atheist' who makes the assertion he knows God or gods do not exist is somewhat foolish if he can't demonstrate the soundness of this claim) we have to refrain from asserting they don't.

 

[Apodictic]

Well an agnostic would hear your claim that God exists and assert that he holds the middle ground in that he simply doesn't know either way whether this is true or not.
An atheist (as we would define it) would hear that same claim and assert that he does not believe that God exists, but the extent to which he does not believe is stronger, much stronger than that of agnostics. Though because we realise that we can't actually know or devise any experiments to determine whether or whether they don't exist, (any 'atheist' who makes the assertion he knows God or gods do not exist is somewhat foolish if he can't demonstrate the soundness of this claim) we have to refrain from asserting they don't.

Okay, so an Atheist is ruling out all unprovable beliefs, including a belief in no deity or a belief in a deity alike. Whereas an Agnostic person has ruled nothing out and sits around unsure as to what side, if any, they should take.

In other words if we have a spectrum of belief

<(NOT BELIEVE)-------------(NOT SURE)-------------(BELIEVE)>
--------1-------------------------2----------------------3

1. Belief God(s) do not exist
2. Unsure either way
3. Belief God(s) do exist

The atheist removes themselves from this spectrum and claims the entire spectrum is unsound logically, because neither extreme has proof.

Right?

Thanks!

 

[Grega]

Okay, so an Atheist is ruling out all unprovable beliefs, including a belief in no deity or a belief in a deity alike. Whereas an Agnostic person has ruled nothing out and sits around unsure as to what side, if any, they should take.

In other words if we have a spectrum of belief

<(NOT BELIEVE)-------------(NOT SURE)-------------(BELIEVE)>
--------1-------------------------2----------------------3

1. Belief God(s) do not exist
2. Unsure either way
3. Belief God(s) do exist

The atheist removes themselves from this spectrum and claims the entire spectrum is unsound logically, because neither extreme has proof.

Right?

Thanks!

hmm...not quite, the atheist does sit at 3, as does the agnostic (if he isn't sure then he doesn't 'believe'), on that spectrum you gave. Your descriptions of 1,2,3 are different from the labels on that diagram.
But if we keep talking about spectrums then let 0 be the statement "God does not exist" and 1 be the statement "God exists", then we atheists sit very close to 0 but not actually on it. Note that this does not say anything about other undefined gods.

I must add though that if some theist takes the time to define some God such that it is logically inconsistent then I will argue that this specific formulation of God does not exist

 

[Apodictic]

Thanks for the explanation. Learned something.

 

[70x7]

As I said to newtolife, one reason why we call ourselves atheists (especially in these forums) is for economy/efficiency/accuracy. It best matches our position in that we "don't believe God exists", whilst it is generally true that most of us don't positively assert that "there exist no gods".

It helps your position to slanderously say we all claim "gods don't exist" such that you can wriggle away from the requirement to justify the positive claims you make (given that you press them upon folks, those who proselytise etc...)

ahh the beauty of atheism and evolution. The definitions can change as easy as thier needs.

 

[Grega]

ahh the beauty of atheism and evolution. The definitions can change as easy as thier needs.

[deleted]
Thankyou for your participation in this thread

 

[ephraimanesti]

hmm...not quite, the atheist does sit at 3, as does the agnostic (if he isn't sure then he doesn't 'believe'), on that spectrum you gave. Your descriptions of 1,2,3 are different from the labels on that diagram.
But if we keep talking about spectrums then let 0 be the statement "God does not exist" and 1 be the statement "God exists", then we atheists sit very close to 0 but not actually on it. Note that this does not say anything about other undefined gods.

"Noted" for sure! Sounds like a serious identity crises to me!

No wonder atheists have trouble with definitions of God--they appear to not be able even to define themselves clearly.

ephraim

 

[dewaddict84]

to be an atheist is to negate that view ie:
not the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation
This is different from:
The belief that no gods exist

Sorry dude,

Atheists have one defining characteristic: They believe there is no god.

It's a belief. It's an -ism, you're an -ist, deal with it.

Now, by and far the English language is defined by the masses, so "agnostic" currently has a usage other then it's technical definition. I'd say that SO MANY people think that it's some kind of fence-sitting belief that the word actually does have that meaning. It's technical definition being the belief that we can't know for sure of the existence of god.

Wikipedia not only has all the answers, it is actually defining the answers.