are you a...

[Pauliesonne]

Atheist, am I.

For the sake of wondering, what are you.

[TobiasTheViking]

I'm the Anti-Freak, thanks for asking.

I know i exist, thus i know of the other gods that exist, thus i'm not an atheist. :D

[Huh-What?]

Atheist. Over Hard.

[slingblade]

Atheist, hard-fought, hard-won. But I made it. I no longer live in the Land of Woo.

:D

[Piscivore]

Skeptic Empiricist Discordian Atheist Pastafarian Funkosophy of Cthulhu.

ETA: I also no longer live in the land of woo. But I like to visit sometimes, because the Loch Ness Monster always gets the best fresh snozzberries.

[TobiasTheViking]

Ok ok, i'm an atheist too.

Born one, never baptized. HAH.

[Dogdoctor]

I hear I am a weak atheist weak, agnostic but think most people would classify me as agnostic.

[Beleth]

Oh, I wish I knew where that post with the chart was...

I'm a Strong Agnostic Theist. It is impossible for us to know whether there was a Creator or not; nevertheless, I believe that there was.

[Ladewig]

I am ... annoyed by ridiculously short thread titles.

Please use descriptive titles so that people will know what the thread is about without opening it and months from now people can find threads easily.

[Pauliesonne]

Oh, I wish I knew where that post with the chart was...

I'm a Strong Agnostic Theist. It is impossible for us to know whether there was a Creator or not; nevertheless, I believe that there was.

Why do you believe there is a creator?

[Gavan]

I was always under the impression that (in basic terms) an Agnostic was prepared to believe in a higher power provided proof of its existence was shown. Whereas an Athiest was someone who refuted the existence of a higher power outright. Using this as a definition I would probably refer to myself as Agnostic but gee I've been waiting a long time for proof.

Does anyone want to give me some?

[Pauliesonne]

I could tell you but then I'd.....

oh, you know the rest.

[HerNibs]

Atheist. No belief in paranormal. Normal is freaky enough.

[Beleth]

Why do you believe there is a creator?
Why do you believe there isn't?

[slingblade]

I always thought an agnostic felt the higher power was unknowable, but that it exists. Could be wrong.

ETA: A-gnostic: without knowing. Isn't that it?

[Gavan]

I always thought an agnostic felt the higher power was unknowable, but that it exists. Could be wrong.


Does that mean that we define an Athiest as someone willing to accept the existence of this higher power (with proof) or do they still refute it outright?

[Pauliesonne]

Why do you believe there isn't?

Well, I'd have to check the evidence ( ? ) and then tell you why the creator has done nothing to help its creation when it's been in so much pain.

[Beleth]

Well, I'd have to check the evidence ( ? ) There is no human-detectable evidence. IMHO there can't possibly be.


and then tell you why the creator has done nothing to help its creation when it's been in so much pain.Ahh, you have added Benevolent Sustainer to the Creator's job description. I have not.

I have no wish to derail this thread further, but I'll continue in a different thread if you like.

[Pauliesonne]

[QUOTE=Beleth;1389661]There is no human-detectable evidence. IMHO there can't possibly be.

Then what makes you think a creator exsists.

Benevolent Sustainer QUOTE]

I know I'm going to sound stupid but, well, could you give a meaning for those two words.

[slingblade]

Does that mean that we define an Athiest as someone willing to accept the existence of this higher power (with proof) or do they still refute it outright?

I think that would depend on what the word and prefix mean.
Does "a" mean "not," or "without," or what? I dunno for sure, so I'm asking.

And does "theist" refer to a god? If atheist means "without god," then it means an atheist is totally without a god, or equally that they feel there is no god.

I'm supposing, mind you. Drat, now I feel the urge to google.

[Beleth]

My last edit came in after Paulie's last reply, so I will repeat it here:

"I have no wish to derail this thread further, but I'll continue in a different thread if you like."

[Jorghnassen]

I am a misanthrope.

/that's what happens when the question isn't specific enough.

[Gavan]

I'm supposing, mind you. Drat, now I feel the urge to google.


Yeah I just did and it appears a little confusing. Once again as someone who is prepared to believe but can't without real proof I don't seem to fall into either category. I feel so lost.

[LostSoul]

Yeah I just did and it appears a little confusing. Once again as someone who is prepared to believe but can't without real proof I don't seem to fall into either category. I feel so lost.

Me too. Over the years my faith has shifted from skeptical belief to, ok I really need to see something.

[Tricky]

I'm a Strong Agnostic Theist. It is impossible for us to know whether there was a Creator or not; nevertheless, I believe that there was.
I'm an Agnostic Atheist. But not strong. I hate working out.

[Gavan]

Me too. Over the years my faith has shifted from skeptical belief to, ok I really need to see something.

So if someone asked you to classify yourself in regards to this thread what would you say?

I think I might just stick with realist.

[Mandy]

I've always been confused about the differences between atheism and agnosticism. There's a very good series of articles regarding this at about.com. This paragraph from that site is short and to the point:


"Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a “third way” between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge — it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not."

[Marquis de Carabas]

I used to be an atheist, believing in no higher power. Now that I've met the higher power and seen evidence of his enormous powers, I am a Daratist.

[slingblade]

Yeah I just did and it appears a little confusing. Once again as someone who is prepared to believe but can't without real proof I don't seem to fall into either category. I feel so lost.

I'm not sure I can be of any help with that, but at dictionary.com I found out that:

An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning “without, not,” as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gnsis, “knowledge,” which was used by early Christian writers to mean “higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things” hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering as “Gnostics” a group of his fellow intellectuals“ists,” as he called themwho had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that explained the world to their satisfaction. Because he was a “man without a rag of a label to cover himself with,” Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870.

Evidently, Huxley felt lost, too. So perhaps it's fitting you should share his term?

[Gavan]

I'm not sure I can be of any help with that, but at dictionary.com I found out that:



Evidently, Huxley felt lost, too. So perhaps it's fitting you should share his term?


Thanks slingblade. I had actually read that before but until now had never really thought about a "classification" that I would give myself. I've decided that I will refer to my self as a "Ectognostic" until I can be brought inside this field of "knowledge".

[PixyMisa]

Little Pink Hello Cthulhu Church of Last Thursdayist.

Here are some of our bible stories (http://www.hello-cthulhu.com/?date=2003-11-30).

[slingblade]

Thanks slingblade. I had actually read that before but until now had never really thought about a "classification" that I would give myself. I've decided that I will refer to my self as a "Ectognostic" until I can be brought inside this field of "knowledge".

Hey, that's pretty cool! I like words. :)

[LostSoul]

So if someone asked you to classify yourself in regards to this thread what would you say?

I think I might just stick with realist.

At the present time I would say agnostic. I am really at a point where I'm just going to go on with my life, free of some mythical father figure I'm suppose to please and let the chips fall where they may.

[LostAngeles]

I was always under the impression that (in basic terms) an Agnostic was prepared to believe in a higher power provided proof of its existence was shown. Whereas an Athiest was someone who refuted the existence of a higher power outright. Using this as a definition I would probably refer to myself as Agnostic but gee I've been waiting a long time for proof.

Does anyone want to give me some?

This is my standing. I don't claim to know either way, but if you can prove the existence or non-existance of God(s), then I'll accept that.

[Gavan]

This is my standing. I don't claim to know either way, but if you can prove the existence or non-existance of God(s), then I'll accept that.

So would you be happy to refer to yourself as 'Ectognostic'?

[LawnOven]

I'm an agnostic athiest ( and secular humanist... skeptic) under the definitions George Smith would use.

That is to say:

I lack a belief in god(s) and believe that (given the nature of most gods) the answer is fundementaly unknowable.

In the mean time I don't spend my days worrying about it. There's alot that humanity can do to uplift itself without the existence of god(s) even being relavent, god these days, seems to just get in the way. When we die, we will all know the answer and that's soon enough isn't it?

I always thought an agnostic felt the higher power was unknowable, but that it exists. Could be wrong.

ETA: A-gnostic: without knowing. Isn't that it?

Well

There can be "agnostic thiests", those who believe in god but understand him(it) as fundementally unknowable beyond that fact. Thiests are people who believe basically that "there is a god and his characteristics are described in ".

Agnostic does not mutually exclude a person from either being a thiest (belief in god) or athiest (lack of a belief in god). As a matter of fact an agnostic [I]has to be one of the other two aswell.

[LawnOven]

I'm an agnostic athiest ( and secular humanist... skeptic) under the definitions George Smith would use.

That is to say:

I lack a belief in god(s) and believe that (given the nature of most gods) the answer is fundementaly unknowable.

In the mean time I don't spend my days worrying about it. There's alot that humanity can do to uplift itself without the existence of god(s) even being relavent, god these days, seems to just get in the way. When we die, we will all know the answer and that's soon enough isn't it?



Well

There can be "agnostic thiests", those who believe in god but understand him(it) as fundementally unknowable beyond that fact. Thiests are people who believe basically that "there is a god and his characteristics are described in ".

Agnostic does not mutually exclude a person from either being a thiest (belief in god) or athiest (lack of a belief in god). As a matter of fact an agnostic [I]has to be one of the other two aswell.

Yeah I just did and it appears a little confusing. Once again as someone who is prepared to believe but can't without real proof I don't seem to fall into either category. I feel so lost.


You may have luck describing yourself as an Agnostic Athiest and reading this book

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/087975124X/103-3377919-7714218?v=glance&n=283155

It's a very good book

[Gavan]

You may have luck describing yourself as an Agnostic Athiest and reading this book



Thanks for the link. I'll have a look.

I still don't think that any of the current labels really fit my way of thinking. I try and keep an open mind about everything and as such I am quite happy to believe in God etc. but as I said before I want proof. As much as I can't prove that unicorns don't exist I still don't want to be someone who just dismisses the possibilty of a God out of hand.

To be literal would an Agnostic Athiest be someone who believes that there is now way of knowing if God doesn't exist? And if so wouldn't that just essentially be the same as being plain old Agnostic?

I hope all that that made sense.

[Rufo]

Thiests are people who believe basically that "there is a god and his characteristics are described in [insert religious text here]".
:notm:

Theists believe there is a God (or Godess, or several), as atheists believe there is none. They don't necessarily claim to know the characteristics of their gods.

According to the wikipedia definition however, they do claim one characteristic - that the gods are "actively involved in maintaining the universe", that is, that the gods are not inactive. Which is added to separate them from deists. However, they do NOT need to belong to a certain religion, although most do.

Myself, I believe I fit in the same category as Beleth (Agnostic Theist), though I admit that my belief is very weak. So, as long as someone says "I believe in God" or "I don't believe in God", I don't think them to be stupid by any means, but anyone who says "God exists" or "God doesn't exist" will have me haunting them forever. :D

[LawnOven]

Thanks for the link. I'll have a look.

I still don't think that any of the current labels really fit my way of thinking. I try and keep an open mind about everything and as such I am quite happy to believe in God etc. but as I said before I want proof. As much as I can't prove that unicorns don't exist I still don't want to be someone who just dismisses the possibilty of a God out of hand.

To be literal would an Agnostic Athiest be someone who believes that there is now way of knowing if God doesn't exist? And if so wouldn't that just essentially be the same as being plain old Agnostic?



If you are interested in labeling yourself I think you are well covered.

A Hard Athiest is someone who makes a positive statement against the existence of god that is "There is no god!". The problem with that is that as I'm sure you can tell, it is impossible to proove positively the non-existence of god. A Soft Athiest is someone who makes no judgements of god they say 'I lack a belief in god', they make no claims about god.

It may appear to be semantic but the difference is very important. If we were talking about um 'Squigily Boos', some intangible something, instead of god. A Hard Athiest (or A-Squigily Booist) would say "There are no Squigily Boos!" to which a Squigily Booist could say "Oh yeah proove it!" putting all the weight on the Athiest to proove his claim. A Soft Athiest makes no claim one way or the other, they would say say "given that I have never encountered Squigily Boos what evidence can you provide that your Squigily Boos exist?"

So, Hard Athiests would claim the have evidence of the non-existence of 'Squigily Boos' A Thiest would claim that they have evidence of the existence of 'Squigily Boos'. And a Soft Athiest when talking to either one would say, "That's interesting, can you proove it?".

And then Agnostisism...

Agnostisism deals with the inability to comprehend God whether they be thiest or a-thiest, nothing more, nothing less, it is not a wishy washy third option which some make it out to be.

So an agnostic thiest would say 'I believe in God, but he is beyond our mortal comprehension'. An agnostic athiest would say "I lack a belief in god, and given the limitless qualities attributed to this god (for which no evidence has been provided), his existence, nature, is impossible to know.

or as you said:

"...an Agnostic Athiest be someone who believes that there is now way of knowing if God doesn't exist"


I hope all that that made sense. :)

I hope all that made sense. Again I would seriously take a look at that book it explains the issue much better than I.

[LawnOven]

:notm:

Theists believe there is a God (or Godess, or several), as atheists believe there is none. They don't necessarily claim to know the characteristics of their gods.


From this, I can tell already we are working from different definitions. Which is an issue of semantics.

You can't assume athiests "believe" anything.

[Rufo]

From this, I can tell already we are working from different definitions. Which is an issue of semantics.
That is, of course, true. But my point is that if theist means a person who "believes basically that 'there is a god and his characteristics are described in [insert religious text here]'", then the term 'agnostic theist' contradicts itself. But you're right, maybe it's not important.

You can't assume athiests "believe" anything.
Well, that's a tricky one. Does lack of belief in an existance mean belief in its nonexistance? And if there is a difference, which one applies to hard/soft atheists? But it's still true as you say - to make sure I should have worded it differently.

[Stitch]

gnostic athesist - I know god exists, I just choose to not believe in him :D

[Stitch]

Well, that's a tricky one. Does lack of belief in an existance mean belief in its nonexistance? And if there is a difference, which one applies to hard/soft atheists? But it's still true as you say - to make sure I should have worded it differently.

Is "Null" the same as "0"?

[Rufo]

Is "Null" the same as "0"?
Yes, in German. :D

[Stitch]

Yes, in German. :D

Wow, I never knew I could speak German.

[Bone_Vulture]

I might define myself as agnostic deist; I'm willing to entertain the thought that some divine force caused the Big Bang, but I refuse to submit to the idea that any god worth believing in would allow all the suffering to occur on Earth. My faith is also weakened by the fear of ending to the bad place*.

* The same place Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and thousands of other bigots are certain that they'll get to.

[Jellby]

I don't know if there's a god, and I don't care. If one exists, it is clear it's either plainly indiferent to us or just behaves randomly, so I don't see why anyone should care about him/her/it. It's also clear none of the gods described by the different religions is real. In the absence of proofs, I believe (as in "I'm not sure, but I find this option more likely") there is no god.

Now, what am I?

[Huh-What?]

I don't know if there's a god, and I don't care. If one exists, it is clear it's either plainly indiferent to us or just behaves randomly, so I don't see why anyone should care about him/her/it. It's also clear none of the gods described by the different religions is real. In the absence of proofs, I believe (as in "I'm not sure, but I find this option more likely") there is no god.

Now, what am I?

I think that would be hard atheism.

Welcome to the club.

[Huh-What?]

...but anyone who says "God exists" or "God doesn't exist" will have me haunting them forever. :D

We made up God, he doesn't exist. :D

[uruk]

I be a middle of the road, bet-hedging agnostic. So far as I can tell there seems to be no god. Everything seems to behave as if there is no god. But you never can be 100% sure about anything. So I accept that there may be a possibility. (however small)

I feel fairly certain that the god most religions believe in do not exist. (God help us if they do!)

I believe that if there is a god, it is nothing like anything we can possibly imagine. This god would be quite beyond our limited ability to comprehend.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

are you a...

Giant Yellow Mutant Space Chickenian. To my knowledge I'm the only member. Let me take this opportunity to spread the good word:

In the beginning a Giant Yellow Mutant Space Chicken .... (blah blah blah).

LLH

[Roboramma]

I am an agnostic strong atheist: I believe there is no god, but of course I'm not sure.

I would be surprised to find that there was a god, but of course if the evidence presented itself, I'd change my opinion.
On the other hand, I wouldn't be that horribly surprised. I can conceive that a god could exist - I just find it unlikely.
What would really surprise me is a god with human qualities and emotions. A god that cared about being worshiped, or how we dress, who we have sex with, what we eat, or any other aspect of our lives (including whether or not we suffer), could be swayed by prayer, was angered by sin, or any of the other things that various religions claim.

What such a god would look like, I can't guess, but it would be strange. Then again, I doubt it exists anyway.

[PixyMisa]

"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
The Relativity of Wrong. One of my favourite Asimov pieces.

[Beerina]

Oh, I wish I knew where that post with the chart was...

I'm a Strong Agnostic Theist. It is impossible for us to know whether there was a Creator or not; nevertheless, I believe that there was.

Interesting. How do you come about thinking it's impossible to know this? Impossible is a strong word, and would only apply if the creator had set the universe in motion to let it run its random, evolution-generating course, and existed outside the universe, or at least in a way undetectable via normal energy and matter from within, or anything else humans or any other advanced species might stumble across or invent.

The standard god of the Bible, who has infinite power and resources, and desires to hide, not giving proof is one such theoretical god.

I mean, he could be sitting in a chair on Mars, or on a planet near Alpha Centauri, waiting for humans to get there, for all we know. Or he can be found (or proven), and doesn't care if we do so, and nobody has merely figured out where or how yet.

Though I suppose you might be justified in that humanity has struggled mightily for millenia to prove exactly this, and has failed, so you could make a statistical argument that it will never happen. However, how that differs from claiming there is no god, I don't know.*




* Since it uses exactly the same reasoning.

[Ausmerican]

As far as the whole agnostic/atheist/theist thing goes I have always been of the opinion that if agnostic is about knowledge of the existence of gunderscored or gunderscoreds then EVERYONE is agnostic. Theists can claim belief, atheists can claim disbelief but neither can claim direct knowledge either way. Therefor some agnostics call themselves theists, some call themselves atheists and some stick with agnostic. I myself use atheist and by reckoning above it is as valid a label as theist.

[Mandy]

I agree. No one can know with absolute certainty, thus, no one has actual "knowledge" that a god does or doesn't exist. So technically, we are all agnostics.

The differences lie only in whether one chooses to believe based on faith, or to disbelieve based on lack of evidence.

But I know of individuals who profess to neither believe nor disbelieve, and since it is not even possible to "know" if god exists, don't feel that it should have any influence on their lives either way.

[Roboramma]

Theists can claim belief, atheists can claim disbelief but neither can claim direct knowledge either way.

Tell that to Iacchus.

[Bri]

Oh, I wish I knew where that post with the chart was...

Here's the chart Beleth was asking for. Unfortunately, tables no longer work so the formatting is a little screwy. Standard disclaimers apply. Your milage may vary:


| Belief in the existance / nonexistance of dieties
Table O' Atheism N' Agnosticism | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| theism: Belief that weak atheism: Lack of a strong atheism: Belief
(*) = uncommon | a diety exists. belief in (the existance or that no dieties exist.
| nonexistance of) dieties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| gnosticism: | Gnostic theist: Gnostic weak atheist: "The Gnostic strong atheist:
| The existance / | "I know (for certain) existance of a god is known, "I know (for certain)
| nonexistance of | that God exists." but I nonetheless lack a that no gods exist."
Knowledge of | a diety is known. | belief in the existance of
the existance / | | gods." (*)
nonexistance of | |
dieties | agnosticism: The | Agnostic theist: Agnostic weak atheist: "It Agnostic strong
| existance / | "It is (currently) is (currently) impossible atheist: "It is
| nonexistance of | impossible to know to know (for certain) if any (currently) impossible
| dieties is | (for certain) if gods exist, therefore I lack to know (for certain)
| unknown. | God exists, but I a belief in (the existance if any gods exist, but
| | believe that God of) gods." I believe that no gods
| | exists." exist."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This table can be simplified somewhat by viewing it this way (excluding the highly uncommon gnostic weak atheist):


Spectrum O' Atheism / Agnosticism


Gnostic theist: "I know (for certain) that God exists."
Agnostic theist: "It is (currently) impossible to know (for certain) if God exists, but I believe that God exists."
Agnostic (agnostic weak atheist): "It is (currently) impossible to know (for certain) if any gods exist, therefore I lack a belief in (the existance of) gods."
Agnostic atheist (agnostic strong atheist): "It is (currently) impossible to know (for certain) if any gods exist, but I believe that no gods exist."
Gnostic atheist (gnostic strong atheist): "I know (for certain) that no gods exist."



Have fun figuring out what you are! Hint: most people fall somewhere in the middle three of the bottom list).

-Bri

[Bri]

I should point out that the above table is a slightly simplified version since some people (perhaps Beleth) distinguish between a "weak" and "strong" agnostic. A weak agnostic would believe that the existance/nonexistance of dieties is unknown whereas the strong agnostic would claim that the existance/nonexistance of dieties cannot be known.

There are relatively few "strong agnostics" and the position is difficult to defend. After all, if the claim is that the existance of dieties is unknowable, then how can you know that the existance of dieties can never be known (such a claim itself assumes a knowledge of dieties that is, according to the claim, impossible).

You can see why it's not included in the above table.

-Bri

[Beleth]

I can't know that the existence of deities can never be known. I never claimed to know it. I do, however, believe it.

My reasoning behind that belief is similar to the reasoning that time travel is impossible: if it were possible, we would have known it by now.

Besides, I believe that there is a hierarchy of creators and their creations. A created thing is necessarily unaware of its creator. I am willing to be shown wrong, but there is no counterexample yet.

[geetarmoore]

I am a strong atheist. That's not as strong of a commitment as a hard atheist, because I'll leave open a .01% chance that there was a creator. However, I also believe that if there was a creator, he doesn't give any care to what it is that I might be doing on this little tiny itsy-bitsy speck of the universe. My 'creator' is a 'no but kissing required' kind of being ;)

[LostAngeles]

So would you be happy to refer to yourself as 'Ectognostic'?

Too many letters, too lazy.

...

WHAT?

[Iacchus]

Myself, I believe I fit in the same category as Beleth (Agnostic Theist), though I admit that my belief is very weak. So, as long as someone says "I believe in God" or "I don't believe in God", I don't think them to be stupid by any means, but anyone who says "God exists" or "God doesn't exist" will have me haunting them forever. :DSo, what's the point in believing anything, if it doesn't carry you to the threshold of what that belief entails? How does one believe in God (or, anything else) if it's merely a matter of wishful thinking?

[Beleth]

:Myself, I believe I fit in the same category as Beleth (Agnostic Theist), though I admit that my belief is very weak. So, as long as someone says "I believe in God" or "I don't believe in God", I don't think them to be stupid by any means, but anyone who says "God exists" or "God doesn't exist" will have me haunting them forever. :D
The word "strong" in my definition (Strong Agnostic Theist) doesn't have to do with the confidence I have in my belief -- it has to do with the endurability of the agnosticism.

A plain Agnostic thinks that we don't know yet.
A Strong Agnostic thinks that we will never know.

[Beleth]

So, what's the point in believing anything, if it doesn't carry you to the threshold of what that belief entails? How does one believe in God (or, anything else) if it's merely a matter of wishful thinking?
I have no idea what your first question means.
As to your second question, wishful thinking should have very little, if anything, to do with it. I believe in Mare Moscoviense even though I have never been there or seen it. There's no wishful thinking involved with it, since I have no desire to visit it.

[Bri]

A plain Agnostic thinks that we don't know yet.
A Strong Agnostic thinks that we will never know.

Most define a "strong agnostic" as one who believes that we can never know (rather than that we will never know). In other words, that knowledge of gods is impossible. Common thought is that any god that was capable of creating the universe would also be capable (if she or he so chose) to make herself/himself known to us.

-Bri

[Beleth]

If we can never know, then we will never know. But I will agree that "can" is more in line with my beliefs anyway.

If there were any evidence to support that common thought, Bri, then I would agree with it. But the evidence actually points the other way. A potter cannot make his existence known to the pot.

[Bri]

A potter cannot make his existence known to the pot.

I'm not sure I understand what this means. A pot would only be an example of a potter being unable to make his existance known to something that cannot think. Your statement would undoubtedly be untrue if a pot could think. If we were able to create artificial intelligence, it might very well know of our existance. Although perhaps stretching the definition of "create," our children who know of our existance. A cloned sheep also knows of the existance of the scientist who cloned it.

-Bri

[Beleth]

Your statement would undoubtedly be untrue if a pot could think. Perhaps. But a pot cannot think, so it's moot. Nothing humans have ever made has been able to think.

If we were able to create artificial intelligence, it might very well know of our existance. Again, perhaps, and again, we haven't created AI yet. Until we do, then I see no reason to change my belief.

Although perhaps stretching the definition of "create," our children who know of our existance. A cloned sheep also knows of the existance of the scientist who cloned it. Yes, of course if you change the meaning of "create", my argument has holes in it. But parents do not create their children; they beget them. Likewise with cloned things.

[Roboramma]

Beleth, I don't get it. It wouldn't be very hard for God to make itself known to us.
Maybe I can accept that it's impossible for that God to prove all of it's attributes (how could one prove omnipotence, or omnicience - any demonstration of power or knowledge is necessarily finite, and thus we could still have our doubts if it had limits).

But said God would convince most people if it scooped us all up, put us on the moon, and, standing in the guise of a 5000 foot tall man, gave a sermon about it's power. Startling us with the fact that we were somehow able to survive unprotected on the moon. If it then went on to willingly answer questions presented to it, and make any reasonable demonstration asked of it's power, knowledge, etc, most would soon be convince that this was indeed god. Including the hardened sceptics amoung us.

Perhaps you are suggesting that God is not omnipotent?
Well, I don't think it would require such a massive display. Something on a much more subtle scale, again so long as it was willing to answer questions, and make demonstrations, would be enough for most - though I suppose that some might be left wondering if this was just some highly technologically advanced alien.

Or is God incapable of speaking to us dirrectly at all?

Or is it simply in God's nature that it never would do this - so making it impossible in some sense of the word?

(just wondering how it could be impossible, rather than just that it hasn't happened yet. After all, if you beleive in God, you can't beleive that just because we don't have evidence for something yet, that's evidence that it can't exist. Unless I'm oversimplifying this...)

[10001]

I am who.

[Dogdoctor]

Beleth, I don't get it. It wouldn't be very hard for God to make itself known to us.
Maybe I can accept that it's impossible for that God to prove all of it's attributes (how could one prove omnipotence, or omnicience - any demonstration of power or knowledge is necessarily finite, and thus we could still have our doubts if it had limits).

But said God would convince most people if it scooped us all up, put us on the moon, and, standing in the guise of a 5000 foot tall man, gave a sermon about it's power. Startling us with the fact that we were somehow able to survive unprotected on the moon. If it then went on to willingly answer questions presented to it, and make any reasonable demonstration asked of it's power, knowledge, etc, most would soon be convince that this was indeed god. Including the hardened sceptics amoung us.

Perhaps you are suggesting that God is not omnipotent?
Well, I don't think it would require such a massive display. Something on a much more subtle scale, again so long as it was willing to answer questions, and make demonstrations, would be enough for most - though I suppose that some might be left wondering if this was just some highly technologically advanced alien.

Or is God incapable of speaking to us dirrectly at all?

Or is it simply in God's nature that it never would do this - so making it impossible in some sense of the word?

(just wondering how it could be impossible, rather than just that it hasn't happened yet. After all, if you beleive in God, you can't beleive that just because we don't have evidence for something yet, that's evidence that it can't exist. Unless I'm oversimplifying this...)
It is possible that we would have difficulty understanding a creature who was so much smarter than us. It is possible that if there was a God that they would want at least some of us to be nonbelievers or many other things for reasons beyond our ability to understand. This is why I am an agnostic.

[Piscivore]

Spectrum O' Atheism / Agnosticism


Gnostic theist: "I know (for certain) that God exists."
Agnostic theist: "It is (currently) impossible to know (for certain) if God exists, but I believe that God exists."
Agnostic (agnostic weak atheist): "It is (currently) impossible to know (for certain) if any gods exist, therefore I lack a belief in (the existance of) gods."
Agnostic atheist (agnostic strong atheist): "It is (currently) impossible to know (for certain) if any gods exist, but I believe that no gods exist."
Gnostic atheist (gnostic strong atheist): "I know (for certain) that no gods exist."



Have fun figuring out what you are! Hint: most people fall somewhere in the middle three of the bottom list).

-Bri

Don't know what you want to call it, but my position is "The 'gods' thusfar postulated by human beings are either incompatible with observable evidence, or if compatible with observable evidence they are so powerless as to be irrelevant. An unpostulated god that would not also be irrelevant would require the unlikely existance of a large area of knowledge thusfar unsuspected and exerting a thusfar unnoticed effect on observed phenomenon."

[Beleth]

Beleth, I don't get it. It wouldn't be very hard for God to make itself known to us.
Then why hasn't He?

But said God would convince most people if it scooped us all up, put us on the moon, and, standing in the guise of a 5000 foot tall man, gave a sermon about it's power. Startling us with the fact that we were somehow able to survive unprotected on the moon. If it then went on to willingly answer questions presented to it, and make any reasonable demonstration asked of it's power, knowledge, etc, most would soon be convince that this was indeed god. Including the hardened sceptics amoung us.
It might convince you, but it would not convince me. There is nothing in a demonstration such as that that would indicate that a being with those abilities is not just an extra-terrestrial, or a hypnotist, or a chemist that has come up with a really cool psychotropic drug. There's nothing in that example that would indicate a being with such powers could also create a universe.

Perhaps you are suggesting that God is not omnipotent?
I see no reason to assume that He would be.

I suppose that some might be left wondering if this was just some highly technologically advanced alien.
Yep.

Or is God incapable of speaking to us dirrectly at all?
I'd phrase it differently. We are incapable of perceiving the Creator directly. That way, it makes it clear that the limitation is ours and not His.

Or is it simply in God's nature that it never would do this - so making it impossible in some sense of the word?
I don't know enough about the Creator to comment either way on that.

(just wondering how it could be impossible, rather than just that it hasn't happened yet.
It's that, plus the observation that a created thing is always unaware of its creator.

[Bri]

Perhaps. But a pot cannot think, so it's moot. Nothing humans have ever made has been able to think.

Your example of the pot not knowing its potter doesn't really seem to be evidence that something that can think cannot possibly know its creator. A pot can't know that one plus one equals two, but human beings can! Likewise, it is possible that human beings (who can think) could know our creator if there is one.

-Bri

[Bri]

Then why hasn't He?

There are many reasons why God might not have made himself known. Perhaps making himself known would preclude us from choosing freely between right and wrong. That he hasn't already doesn't seem to be evidence that he couldn't make himself known at some future date if he so chose.

-Bri

[Bri]

Don't know what you want to call it, but my position is "The 'gods' thusfar postulated by human beings are either incompatible with observable evidence, or if compatible with observable evidence they are so powerless as to be irrelevant. An unpostulated god that would not also be irrelevant would require the unlikely existance of a large area of knowledge thusfar unsuspected and exerting a thusfar unnoticed effect on observed phenomenon."

You can call it whatever you want, but if you're asking me to guess at where your belief would fall, I would probably guess that you are an agnostic atheist, especially if you admit that some of your position cannot be proven as fact. If you claim that your position can be proven as fact (rather than opinion), you might be a gnostic atheist. Although it doesn't sound like it from your post, if you have no belief or opinion one way or the other as to whether or not gods exist, you might even be an agnostic.

-Bri

[Beleth]

Your example of the pot not knowing its potter doesn't really seem to be evidence that something that can think cannot possibly know its creator. A pot can't know that one plus one equals two, but human beings can! Likewise, it is possible that human beings (who can think) could know our creator if there is one.
I will change my conclusion when presented with evidence. So far there has been none, and believe me, I've looked.


There are many reasons why God might not have made himself known. Perhaps making himself known would preclude us from choosing freely between right and wrong. That he hasn't already doesn't seem to be evidence that he couldn't make himself known at some future date if he so chose.
Again, it's not so much a limitation on the Creator as it is on created things in general. There is nothing a deity could do to show His existence to us that we couldn't possibly chalk up to a powerful extra-terrestrial or a really detailed hallucination.

I hate to tell you this, Bri, but I've heard all this before. Usually the next argument is "well, Beleth, the Creator you describe is a total feeb and irrelevant", to which my reply is "Owing your existence to something who is no longer a constant force in your life doesn't make that thing irrelevant."

[Huh-What?]

Then why hasn't He?


Because he is fictional. We made up God. To me this seems the simplest answer to why he has not appeared.

Had God existed and was powerful enough to create the universe and design our human perception he could then take a form that was both easy to perceive and at the same time unquestionably GOD.

He has not, because he is fantasy.

[Bri]

I will change my conclusion when presented with evidence. So far there has been none, and believe me, I've looked.

You are making a positive claim, namely that it is impossible to know whether or not a god exists. The default claim would be that it is possible until proven otherwise, therefore your claim would require evidence.

I hate to tell you this, Bri, but I've heard all this before. Usually the next argument is "well, Beleth, the Creator you describe is a total feeb and irrelevant", to which my reply is "Owing your existence to something who is no longer a constant force in your life doesn't make that thing irrelevant."

Oh, I have no problem with deism per se. Is it necessary for a deist to believe that it is impossible for us to know of the existance of God rather than we don't know (that God for whatever reason doesn't interfere with the world)? It doesn't seem that strong agnosticism is necessary to the idea of a diest God. BTW, many deists also believe that God judges us after we die, and therefore is not inconsequential (or as you put it, "a total feeb and irrelevant") despite the fact that he doesn't interfere with the world.

-Bri

[Roboramma]

Then why hasn't He?
Maybe he's got better things to do. Personally, I figure that if there is a God there's very little reason to believe it cares much about this insignificant corner of creation.

Or maybe it just isn't time yet. Who knows?


It might convince you, but it would not convince me. There is nothing in a demonstration such as that that would indicate that a being with those abilities is not just an extra-terrestrial, or a hypnotist, or a chemist that has come up with a really cool psychotropic drug. There's nothing in that example that would indicate a being with such powers could also create a universe.
Well, a god that's intelligent enough to design a universe that could unfold to create what we see before us could design a much more ingenious way of showing his true nature.
It could certainly show that it existed. It would be harder to show that it was the creator of the universe. But it might be able to show it well enough that that was the best explanation that we could come up with for what we were seeing. Other things (like a powerful extraterestrial) seeming less likely.

For instance, what if after this demonstration, God said, "I have made you all imortal. Here is an object that will create energy (defying thermodynamics) for all eternity. Go out into the universe, find all the evidence you can. See if you can find any other explanation of who I am. Also, if you have any other questions, or require any more demostrations, all you have to do is ask. You need only think "God, can you do this?" and I will appear before you.
Eventually we would have enough evidence that this was truely our creator that we could be as sure of it as I am that my parents were really my parents.


I see no reason to assume that He would be.
Fair enough. Maybe God lacks the power to affect the universe at all now. Okay, then it would be impossible for him to make himself known to us now. Though that wouldn't preclude him having set things in motion at the beginning of time such that we would see that evidence come to light eventually.

I'd phrase it differently. We are incapable of perceiving the Creator directly. That way, it makes it clear that the limitation is ours and not His.
What does that statement mean? Are we incapable of seeing our creator? Incapable of interacting with it? Or just incapable of acquireing adequate evidence to know for certain that it is our creator?

It's that, plus the observation that a created thing is always unaware of its creator.
Well, concidering that the only created thing that is aware of anything that we know to be unaware of it's creator is us, the arguement seems to be circular - "We are unaware of our creator. Therefore created things cannot be aware of their creators, therefore we will always be unaware of our creator".

Things that aren't aware of anything at all be unaware of their creator aren't evidence that things that do have awareness cannot be. Just as things that cannot see being incapable of seeing purple isn't evidence that things that can see cannot see purple.

[Almo]

Why do you believe there isn't?

In a certain way, it would be too good to be true. It would provide the comfort that there may be a purpose to our existence.

On the other hand, it allows us to take responsibility for who we are, and make something of ourselves.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Per m-w.com, I am an agnostic,
": a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god"

[Beleth]

You are making a positive claim, namely that it is impossible to know whether or not a god exists. The default claim would be that it is possible until proven otherwise, therefore your claim would require evidence. What more evidence would you have me provide?

That's part of my point. Even describing what proof would look like is impossible. What is proof to one person is an anecdote, or worse yet a hallucination, to another.

It doesn't seem that strong agnosticism is necessary to the idea of a diest God. You're right, it isn't.

BTW, many deists also believe that God judges us after we die, and therefore is not inconsequential (or as you put it, "a total feeb and irrelevant") despite the fact that he doesn't interfere with the world. See, that's where I see cognitive dissonance. If we can't experience God, then we can't experience His rules for us... so any basis He would have to judge us is necessarily capricious. I am reminded of an episode of South Park where everyone that died that say shows up at the Pearly Gates and St. Peter says "Well, I guess you are all wondering which religion got it right... well, I hate to say this, but it's the Mormons. The rest of you, off to Hell you go."

It'd be like living in the country where you didn't know the laws, couldn't know the laws, and yet was full of policemen hauling people off to prison left and right. How could that possibly be considered just?

[Beleth]

Maybe he's got better things to do. Personally, I figure that if there is a God there's very little reason to believe it cares much about this insignificant corner of creation. That could very well be too. There are a lot of different conclusions that could be drawn with the (lack of) evidence that we have. That's one of them. Mine is another.


Well, a god that's intelligent enough to design a universe that could unfold to create what we see before us could design a much more ingenious way of showing his true nature.
It could certainly show that it existed. It would be harder to show that it was the creator of the universe. But it might be able to show it well enough that that was the best explanation that we could come up with for what we were seeing. Other things (like a powerful extraterestrial) seeming less likely. I literally cannot imagine how. and no one else I have ever talked to could either. It is one thing to say "God could prove His existence to us" and quite another to finish the sentence "God could prove His existence to us by ..."

That's what I mean by "We are incapable of perceiving the Creator directly. That way, it makes it clear that the limitation is ours and not His." We can't see Him because we are not "designed", if you will, to see Him. We can only work with the small number of senses we have, and we know that all of those senses can be fooled.


For instance, what if after this demonstration, God said, "I have made you all imortal. Here is an object that will create energy (defying thermodynamics) for all eternity. Go out into the universe, find all the evidence you can. See if you can find any other explanation of who I am. Also, if you have any other questions, or require any more demostrations, all you have to do is ask. You need only think "God, can you do this?" and I will appear before you.
Eventually we would have enough evidence that this was truely our creator that we could be as sure of it as I am that my parents were really my parents. That's a pretty darn good test. But even it would fail. Why? Because there is no such thing as "eternity" (infinite time) for time-bound creatures like ourselves. The best we can say is "we haven't died yet". And, again, our senses can be fooled. Ever dream that you have woken up in the morning? Showered, eaten breakfast, gone off to work or to school, and then you really wake up and realize that you have to do it all over again? I have.

Well, concidering that the only created thing that is aware of anything that we know to be unaware of it's creator is us, the arguement seems to be circular - "We are unaware of our creator. Therefore created things cannot be aware of their creators, therefore we will always be unaware of our creator".That first "therefore" isn't a conclusion based on reason, it's a conclusion based on observation, so it shouldn't have a "therefore" in front of it.
We are unaware of our Creator.
Created things are also unaware of their creators, and remain so.
Therefore we will remain unaware of our Creator.

Things that aren't aware of anything at all be unaware of their creator aren't evidence that things that do have awareness cannot be. Just as things that cannot see being incapable of seeing purple isn't evidence that things that can see cannot see purple.But we're not talking about things that can be seen, such as purple, and we're not talking only about created things that aren't aware. If we are created, then birds, bees, elephants, and every aware thing was also created, and I haven't come across any evidence that they can sense the Creator either.
Again, it's an argument based as much on evidence as on pure reason, and as such, I will gladly change my belief the instant the Creator can be seen. But I don't see any reason to change it before then.

[Bri]

What more evidence would you have me provide?

I don't think you can provide evidence of your claim that it is impossible that we will ever know whether or not God exists. The problem is, that in order to make a claim that we cannot know about God, you must at the same time claim to know about God (namely, that he cannot or will not ever make himself known to us). It's sort of a catch-22 position, which makes it rather difficult to defend.

See, that's where I see cognitive dissonance. If we can't experience God, then we can't experience His rules for us... so any basis He would have to judge us is necessarily capricious.

I imagine that most diests believe that God left us with his rules (in the Bible or elsewhere). Otherwise, you're right -- his judgement would be capricious. And of course if God ever interacted with the world in order to provide the rules, then it would be hard to argue that he never will (or can) do so again. I imagine that's why most diests are probably not strong agnostics.

-Bri

[Cosmo]

I literally cannot imagine how. and no one else I have ever talked to could either. It is one thing to say "God could prove His existence to us" and quite another to finish the sentence "God could prove His existence to us by ..."

Just thought I'd jump in to answer this. If God were indeed omnipotent, as he is said to be, he'd merely have to snap his proverbial fingers to "flip a switch" in my brain that would instantly cause me to believe in his existence. That, I'd say, is a valid way to finish your sentence.

[Beleth]

I don't think you can provide evidence of your claim that it is impossible that we will ever know whether or not God exists.That's not what I asked. Whether it is possible to provide it is besides the point. All I want you to do is describe what evidence you would have me provide. My conclusion is largely based on my observation that it is impossible to do that.


The problem is, that in order to make a claim that we cannot know about God, you must at the same time claim to know about God (namely, that he cannot or will not ever make himself known to us). It's sort of a catch-22 position, which makes it rather difficult to defend.No offense, but it's this kind of reasoning that makes people conclude that atheism is a religion.

And again, the belief that we cannot detect the Creator is more a statement about ourselves than it is about the Creator. "A strainer cannot hold oobleck" describes the strainer; it only describes the oobleck through inference. It doesn't even state that oobleck exists.


I imagine that most diests believe that God left us with his rules (in the Bible or elsewhere). Otherwise, you're right -- his judgement would be capricious.Deists who believe that the Bible is the word of God aren't really Deists, they're Christians. Likewise for any other holy book and the religion associated with that book.


And of course if God ever interacted with the world in order to provide the rules, then it would be hard to argue that he never will (or can) do so again. I imagine that's why most diests are probably not strong agnostics.I do not speak for Deists. You will have to ask one of them to resolve that.

[Beleth]

Just thought I'd jump in to answer this. If God were indeed omnipotent, as he is said to be, he'd merely have to snap his proverbial fingers to "flip a switch" in my brain that would instantly cause me to believe in his existence. That, I'd say, is a valid way to finish your sentence.I know of no evidence that such a switch exists, and I know of no evidence that only God could flip such a switch.

[Cosmo]

I know of no evidence that such a switch exists

It was a metaphor. Whether or not the switch actually exists is no barrier to an omnipotent being.

, and I know of no evidence that only God could flip such a switch.

That's another discussion entirely. ;)

Edit: I think I may have misunderstood what you meant by that second clause. In any case, God (being omnipotent) could flip the switch in such a way that we'd all be sure it was him who did it.

[Beleth]

That's another discussion entirely. ;)Perhaps. But it also goes to the heart of what I am saying.

If some other mechanism besides God could provide proof that God exists, then it's not really proof. And that's what's so hard about positing proof -- the human mind is, I believe, incapable of coming up with a "God test" that only God could pass.

It might be trivial for God to pass any test. But my point is that we, as humans, aren't able to recognize a successful test. All the tests that we can recognize could be replicated by something that isn't God. And since we are the ultimate judges of what constitutes proof to us, God can't possibly prove Himself to us. This is, again, a limitation of ourselves and not of God.

[Beleth]

And now I'm off to TAM. See you all next week!

[Cosmo]

Perhaps. But it also goes to the heart of what I am saying.

If some other mechanism besides God could provide proof that God exists, then it's not really proof. And that's what's so hard about positing proof -- the human mind is, I believe, incapable of coming up with a "God test" that only God could pass.

It might be trivial for God to pass any test. But my point is that we, as humans, aren't able to recognize a successful test. All the tests that we can recognize could be replicated by something that isn't God. And since we are the ultimate judges of what constitutes proof to us, God can't possibly prove Himself to us. This is, again, a limitation of ourselves and not of God.

You are putting limitations on God's power. If he is omnipotent, it would be both simple and effortless for him to cause all humanity to instantly know that he existed, and, furthermore, that this newfound knowledge is not the result of a powerful deceiver like satan or a technologically advanced alien race.

Furthermore, he could instantly and effortlessly 'rewire' our lives and societies in such a way as to make this sudden knowledge not cause anarchy ;)

[Roboramma]

and we're not talking only about created things that aren't aware. Then stop trying to use them as evidence.

If we are created, then birds, bees, elephants, and every aware thing was also created, and I haven't come across any evidence that they can sense the Creator either.
Nor have you got any evidence that they aren't. Which leaves you with only one example of an aware thing that isn't aware of it's creator - us.

The other examples either aren't aware - in which case they can't be used as evidence - or you don't know one way or the other if they are aware of their creator.

So, your conclusion based on observation is based upon one observation - human beings. I don't consider that to be all that strong.

Again, it's an argument based as much on evidence as on pure reason, and as such, I will gladly change my belief the instant the Creator can be seen. But I don't see any reason to change it before then.

Your stance seems to be: until I can see god, I will assume that it is impossible to see god. And your only evidence is that you don't know anyone who's seen god.

[Mason]

You are putting limitations on God's power. If he is omnipotent, it would be both simple and effortless for him to cause all humanity to instantly know that he existed, and, furthermore, that this newfound knowledge is not the result of a powerful deceiver like satan or a technologically advanced alien race.She isn't putting limitations on the God's power, but on the abilities of man to recognize the God's power. Step by step...
If he is omnipotent, it would be both simple and effortless for him to cause all humanity to instantly know that he existed, and, furthermore (snip) Currently, roughly 80% of humanity knows that he exists. Does that mean he really does exist? More to the point, would it really take godly power to convert the other 20%, or just better marketing? Very specifically... It does not take divine power to make people believe in a divine power, so if it truly is a divine power that causes the belief, it is still not evidence that the divine power exists.(snip) ...furthermore, that this newfound knowledge is not the result of a powerful deceiver like satan or a technologically advanced alien race. Again, we could know that the source is divine, but that wouldn't make it actually be divine, since it does not require a divine source to make people believe that the source is divine.

Basically, any condition that we are capable of evaluating can be met with non-divine resources. Any that can not be observed with non-divine resourses can't be understood by mankind. If you set a specific condition as the required proof, and that condition is met, you still have to prove that the condition could in no way have ever been possible to meet through non-divine means.

[Cosmo]

She isn't putting limitations on the God's power, but on the abilities of man to recognize the God's power. Step by step...

Man's ability or inability to recognize God's power is not a barrier for an omnipotent being. He could effortlessly cause mankind to be able to recognize his power, and in a way that achieved his goals.

Currently, roughly 80% of humanity knows that he exists. Does that mean he really does exist? More to the point, would it really take godly power to convert the other 20%, or just better marketing? Very specifically... It does not take divine power to make people believe in a divine power, so if it truly is a divine power that causes the belief, it is still not evidence that the divine power exists.

God, being omniscient, would know precisely what actions (or lack thereof) are required to cause the other 20% to believe. The fact that 20% do not yet believe in his existence suggests a rather catastrophic failure on his part - to the point that it raises doubts in my mind why he'd run the show so inefficiently.

Again, we could know that the source is divine, but that wouldn't make it actually be divine, since it does not require a divine source to make people believe that the source is divine.

You too are limiting his omnipotence. God could not only ensure that we knew the source of this message was divine, but that we also knew the source could not have possibly originated from a powerful deceiver. Furthermore, he could ensure that the thought would never occur to a single member of humanity that the source was anything other than God. If it sounds weird, that's because it is. But weirdness is no barrier to an omnipotent god.

Basically, any condition that we are capable of evaluating can be met with non-divine resources. Any that can not be observed with non-divine resourses can't be understood by mankind. If you set a specific condition as the required proof, and that condition is met, you still have to prove that the condition could in no way have ever been possible to meet through non-divine means.

It would be a miniscule effort for an omnipotent being to meet your conditions here.

[ruach1]

I was always under the impression that (in basic terms) an Agnostic was prepared to believe in a higher power provided proof of its existence was shown. Whereas an Athiest was someone who refuted the existence of a higher power outright. Using this as a definition I would probably refer to myself as Agnostic but gee I've been waiting a long time for proof.

Does anyone want to give me some?

According to English Words from Classical Elements, Donald M. Ayers:

gnosis is a Greek word for knowledge

theos is a Greek word for God

a, an is a prefix meaning not, without.

As I understand it, agnosticism means one who says there is no sufficient knowledge available to "prove" the existence of a real God. Agnostics can align in two general ways: a) the agnostic who says there is no sufficient knowledge for God and concludes there is no God because God should give adequate knowledge for God's existence to God's creation, and, thus, all followers or believers are deluded because of the lack of knowledge, and b) the agnostic who, though there is no sufficient or adequate knowledge, still leaves the God issue open being that human knowledge may, in itself, be insufficient in "knowing" God with intellectual knowledge alone.

Atheists, I think, believe there is no such thing as God period, end of discussion, don't bother me with all this woo business about God, gods.

[Roboramma]

An atheist does not believe in god. That's it.

A weak atheist doesn't believe in god, but makes no claim one way or the other for it's existence - god may or may not exist.
A strong atheist not only doesn't believe in god, but goes so far as to believe that there is no god (note the subtle difference). He might say "I'm as sure that there is no god as I am that there is no tooth-fairy", but not all strong atheists are that certain of their belief.

Most of these are also agnostic. I think that you will have a hard time finding an atheist who, when pressed, won't admit to also being agnostic. Though some will suggest that for all intents and purposes they do know that god doesn't exist, offering the caveat: "I may not be able to prove that god doesn't exist, but neither can I prove that you do. Yet you would just find me silly if I proclaimed agnosticism about your existence."

[3point14]

After reading this thread, I'd label myself as a hard atheist.

There is no god, and I don't require proof, in much the same way that I don't require any proof that there aren't purple faries at the bottom of the garden, invisible monsters in the closet or a bogeyman behind the door.

[Huh-What?]

Being a hard atheist I would say if proof does come along that God does exist I would convert and admit to being wrong.

However, the believers have had thousands of years to come up anything resembling evidence and can not. I am sure they never will.

Mason, your 80% figure seems unrealistic. After all the majority of the world population is religious in one form or another, but most of them have the same view of the Christian god that I do. That is; he doesn't exist. They have their own god(s) and they don't appear compatible with the Christian god myth.

The diversity of myths that are believed today would actually lend more support for the atheist point of view. After all, name ANY religion and the vast majority of the world believes it be false.