@Anne-95209 Excellent. Fascinating. So the improvement to my bare bones definition is indeed to divide into groups, with some terms I was not aware of. I will have to study to see whether my very basic understanding is contradicted; or if it is elaborated upon.

Not only are there groups, each has its own continuim. That makes it much more difficult to put into words, thus the misunderstandings between people using the same vocabulary. Let us know what you find.

@Anne-95209 perfect. These misunderstandings are what I wanted to clarify. I was not even close in my imagination of the complexity of these solutions.

I have also been very much enjoying responses to my bare bones theory, such as it is.

Thank you ?

By my system, those people who think that way are not atheists. Atheists know. Or believe they know. Once you get into the realm of "I can't know," you are doubting again.

Perhaps the actual atheist then, combining your thoughts and mine, is naive.

Everyone, I an NOT calling atheists naive. I am exploring the implications that certain theories would bring one to!

@Qopel Unless and until credible, verifiable evidence exists to prove the existence of any god, I am quite confident that there aren't any.
I KNOW there are no gods.
Prove otherwise and I'll change my mind.

But does not the fact that you say you will believe with evidence mean you are not sure? I would never say I will believe that cats have six legs if I am given evidence. I am sure that cats have four or fewer (in case of injury or mutation) legs. No one will ever convince me otherwise; so I would not even entertain the thought that I would believe it if anything.

On the other hand, such profession can be not an actual belief but a challenge; or the reason.

What do you think?

@LionMousePudding Just because we don't have evidence right here and now that there is no god doesn't mean that one day that evidence won't be found. I am convinced that one day there will be cures for different cancers. I am convinced because science has shown that it continues to grow, it tests and re-tests until the evidence is conclusive. So although we can't know conclusively this moment that there is no god, I am sure that one day we will look back at this stage of religious believers and laugh approarously.

Interesting!

The emojis were a surprise. I typed the letter a in parentheses, and got halos. Love the irony!

@Anne-95209 Sadly, as I have learned, there a many things we cannot type on this blog without creating some stupid new emoji!

Fortunately for me, the emojis worked well in context. lol

See above. And remember, we are talking philosophy at this point.

I know 1,000,000,000,000,000 percent that there are no gods, I am definitely not agnostic, I am Michael and I am an atheist, hell, I am an antitheist, as the American Atheist Organization puts it, I am an atheist. Just because I don't know the whole universe story from the Big Bang to the present doesn't mean I haven't seen enough to make a final judgement about our Universe, There is so mauch supporting evedence.

@LionMousePudding maybe I am not interpreting what you are saying but atheism is not about knowledge but deals with the disbelief in a god/gods.... Agnosticism is dealing with knowledge. Agnosticism doesn't apply to just religion. It applys to essentially everything seeing as no one can for sure know all the outcomes of a certain situation. Are you saying that I cannot be atheist because I say there is a .01 percent chance there could be a god? Just to sum up my thoughts, you can be both agnostic and atheist. You cannot be Christian and atheist. But you can be Christian and agnostic. Because religion and knowledge are two complete separate things.

@Jjones @MichaelAllan57 I concede ??

The gnostics would disagree that their position is untenable, as they define it differently.

@Anne-95209 true, they would...doesnt change reality though.

No their not! One can know for a fact that their simply no immortal beings, this is just plain fact one can and should arrive at using one's own intellect, the facts, so so so very many of them causes one to arrive at this simple and obvious answer, if one only will apply one's intellectual Powers.

@MichaelAllan57 in order for something, anything to be a fact it must be objectively verifiable. That is what defines a subject as fact. The existence of a god is not objectively verifiable one way or the other. Specific gods such as the Christian or other claimed mono and polytheistic gods can be logically proven to be falsehoods that is true. But to claim as fact that there is none cannot. That is as much as a falsehood as those who claim there is.
Logically in all probability you are correct there are none but that is not a fact because it is not objectively verifiable, the only way to verify that as a fact would be to you yourself, be omnipresent and omniscient. The universe is immensely vast, not to mention possible multiverses. To state as fact there are none at all anywhere is an untenable position to hold. I myself hold to the belief there isn’t, or more accurately I don’t believe there is. But that cannot be verified therefore it is not a fact.
Ultimately though the question itself is a moot point. Weather or not a god or gods exist is irrelevant, should they not well....they don’t. Should they exist then they have created an existence that requires no intervention on their part to function thereby rendering themselves irrelevant. The worshippers are the true problem, regardless of the gods existence or lack there of.

Gonna have to agree here. I don't know if it's the OP's intention, but this comes across pretty abrasive and at least once makes an attempt at unilaterally defining the terms for all of us, completely paying neither attention nor consideration to the dozens of variations of this conversation already on this site which have, if I'm being completely honest, contained much better general definitions for all of these terms without ducking directly into directly stating that anyone who didn't answer a certain question with one of two exact answers is wrong and has to follow this prescribed definition.

I don't care whether there is some sort of God object thingy. I do care about the usage of words, and the differences in definition people use and assume. I have my own assumptions; I have laid them out for you. I am asking 1. What you think of my definitions, and 2. What yours are, and 3. Why there is a difference. I am a linguist and a philosopher.

If you are actually offended that my belief system is "I don't care," I ask you why that is not valid. Does every agnostic have to study and pore and examine and obsess? What in that case would be your definition of agnostic, if not "one who is not certain there is, and is not certain there isn't? Why is my definition wrong? What criterion or criteria do you add to my extremely basic and broad definition?

@geist171 I am laying out my own thoughts and asking about yours. I do believe, until otherwise convinced, that anyone between 1 and 99 is agnostic. But you do not have to be offended by the fact that I have this belief. People have different beliefs. Being offended every time someone has a belief which could extend to you, is going to keep you offended a lot.

And I have the question. If you do not like the fact that I posted, why did you comment? Just click past the posts you do not want to read. Or are you blaming me for the time it took you to read it? You could have figured out pretty quickly that you disagreed.

I have laid out the intent of my text. What is the intent of your comment? Who is your audience? Me? Am I supposed to feel chastened by your opinion? Why would you waste your time making that little bit of negativity in the world? Or is your audience other readers, who need to know that you don't like the very fact that I posted? Is it to collect other people who do not like it? So your goal is to multiply chasten me in a group? Or is your goal to let the world know that you don't like that you disagree with the very fact that I posted? Why do they need to know that?

When it comes to writing on the Internet, before pressing enter you should think about these four things:

1. I can have a thought and not write it down.

2. Who is my audience?

3. What is my goal in writing this? Am I informing? Am I trying to add a little negativity to the world? Am I trying to insult someone; and is that a good goal?

4. What might the effect be? Is this something better avoided?

@LionMousePudding The purpose of my comment was to agree with the previous comment. I believe you are being at least one degree of magnitude more confrontational than is necessary for the conversation you're trying to have. Your sentence structure, use of punctuation, and word choice all indicate these statements are coming from a place of anger, which you are directing more or less at members of the community who do not immediately agree with your very semantically limited explanation of three belief systems. And you are absolutely welcome to your beliefs, opinions, and philosophies. And you are equally welcome to share them. But intention and interpretation are different sides of a coin.

Intention of a statement is 100% in the realm of the speaker.
Interpretation of that statement is 100% in the realm of the audience.

You are welcome to say what you want, and we are welcome to interpret what you are saying and how you are saying it. My issue is far less with what you're trying to say, and far more with how you're trying to say it.

I do not believe this level of animosity, defensiveness, and confrontational verbal posturing is congruent with a group of people who are, for all intents and purposes, in at least some form of agreement with the ideas you're espousing, but you're doing it in the most abrasive way possible, and I'm not sure that's the best angle. It's just my opinion, you can not like it if you want, but I am just as welcome to speak my opinion as you are to speak yours.

@geist171 I see that my writing and perhaps thinking style do not please you.

@LionMousePudding It's entirely possible. I place a lot of value on the how, sometimes more than the what. I am perfectly happy to agree to disagree in that instance.

I think this is false. If you look it up on science sitesthey have no explanation for the earliest fractions of a second of the universe. They say their science can't explain it. Yet. And the yet part is pure conjecture.

@CallMeDave No more so than a deist god explanation. But to move from a deist god to a theist god of religions is pure confabulation.

@CallMeDave there are some gaps but since everything else can be explained without supernatural events, it would be highly unlikely that it would be used to fill in the gaps.

I for one would be proud of that post.. I realise you chance of sarcasm regarding not posting your opinions again without scrupulously fact checking.... Is most likely tongue in cheek. .. look at your thread. Though...you got people writing... And Lionmousepudding.......I like it..

@Seriousreason ..on this topic, I should say ?. In other words, I have a lot here to study and learn before I ask another question.

Thank you! I am nicknamed Mouse, strong as a lion, and sweet as pudding ??

It frustrates me that in for instance OKCupid, the same men who understand science; are intelligent; and are agnostic or atheist; will still say that creationism should be taught side by side with evolution. Can they not see that they are swallowing the framing of the dominant religion? Can they not see that this is a violation of separation of church and state? And of course the next question is why are we teaching the Christian theory of the start of life? Why not the Buddhist theory? Or maybe there are turtles all the way down?

Thank you for sharing both the article and that web site. First off this article made me feel not as lonely with my thoughts. I did consider myself to be a "Realist" since I was trying to be Real with my thinking but I see now that "Truthist" seems more true and accurate of who I am and the way I prefer to see the "bigger picture" thats around me. As I read I began to feel small, then tiny, and then i felt like the "Incredible Shrinking Man". I just kept getting smaller as I saw the bigger picture of this writer's words. I do think that there is different levels in the natural order of life which we call mother nature that guides simple life to mature thru evolution to the complex of the creation of stars within the universe. Now as to the possibility this is one universe amongst many like bubbles in a tub is yet to be known though I am curious. I have considered the "Matrix" as one possibility to what place in reality we might be. I'm really not sure what our universe, as a whole, truely is or where it is. I've also consider the multidimensional concept and that is still beyond me. The possibility of "Others" in this universe who are far older then our species as being somewhere out there I have not doubted. As to whether we have been "visited" by such, I don't think so but I also do say "anything is possible". I think articles like this is what should be taught in school, discussed and debated constantly as a guideline to help people find their "rational" selves. I was going to say "logical" selves but I'm not sure about using the word "logical" after reading that. What a fantastic read.