Is there any argument more pointless and stupid than the "if you admit some definition of gods are possible, you aren't an atheist"?

Could you be wrong about God? When then I guess you aren't a theist. Yay, religion just disappeared, I win! I mean, I didn't change any minds or prove anything, but I'll count it as a win because labels matter more than ideas!

But you're not an agnostic, because you do care whether there's a god or not.

You're a seeker.

Here's a bible.

Agnostic just means you think a claim isn't known. It has nothing to do with whether you believe it, or whether you care about it, and it's not even specific to gods.

If one can agree a person is a theist when they believe, regardless of whether they know (through revelation for example), it should be obvious a person is atheist if they don't believe, regardless of whether they think it's known.

I actually really like a term somebody introduced me to recently; 'Ignostic'.

It basically means you think the question 'Is there a God?' is a poorly formed one.

Stars for IrishWhisky, who is correct. Atheism refers to a lack of belief in gods (of any variety). Agnostic refers to someone who does not believe a claim is knowable.

People seem intensely interested in distorting (or wilfully misunderstanding) what atheism means, and the people that seem to want to distort it the most are fundamentalist Christians (at least in western society). It seems like they think that if they radically redefine the term enough, they will eradicate atheists just by moving the goalposts far enough back.

If you don't take part in theism, you are an atheist in the same way that if you don't take part in a moral code, you are amoral. You can think up new terms to better present yourself - I, myself, don't readily call myself an atheist for the same reason Americans wear Canadian flags while travelling - but the term is very straightforward.

Socrates was an atheist. It was one of the reasons he was executed.

Actually, what he did was question the relationship that gods had with people, with one another, and with the state. The last was the biggest no-no. Socrates spends a lot of time dissecting the popular understanding of the Gods and placing believers in uncomfortable places. See his conversation with Adeimantus for a prime example of this. By questioning practically every aspect of God it is possible to situate the concept in a way that is appropriate for the place, time, and society where it is needed. I think Socrates new that, but it was too dangerous an idea.

The New Atheism of Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens is not the only atheism. The dictionary is not a primary source on the history of atheism. That's why New Atheism has its own special name.

I'd say Socratic Atheism is far more dangerous to both New Atheism and religious fundamentalism.

knew

What annoys me most about the whole "You only know 5% of the truth..." argument is this pastor who freely admits to not being a professor (and likely has little higher education) knows much less than 5%, and he's very comfortable NOT seeking out more knowledge.

Most scientists, professors and university students freely acknowledge they don't know everything, and are actively working to expand their knowledge. This fellow just says "God is the answer" and feels that explains enough. For him, and for anyone else.

I'd once heard the term "apatheist" to refer to someone who felt it didn't MATTER if there was a god(s) or not as long as people behaved as if they did (it's a bit like that old joke about the rock that keeps tigers away).

It actually goes either theist or atheist. The 'third' being agnostic is in its own category. It's the difference between belief and knowledge.

Theism being the belief in a god, and atheist opposite. If you don't believe in any god(s), but know that possibly one does exist, this would be Agnostic Atheism. The opposite of this would be Gnostic Atheism, or not believing and knowing there is no god(s). You can believe there is a god(s) but choose to stay out of choosing which one and be an Agnostic Theist, but most religious people are Gnostic Theists.

It's playing the 'proof' game, gnostic theism claiming until proof comes up otherwise, they will believe and agnostic theism claiming without proof they won't believe.


Personally I don't think Cthulhu cares either way.

It's a much simplier problem than that. The Bible is not believable.