Well that looks like a big no true scotsman.

"a true atheist"

I stand with Bertrand.

Religious theologians actually teach a false narrative about Atheism and Agnosticism. Your opening statement tells me you are still laboring under that.

"Agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve. Atheism, on the other hand, is a BELIEF SYSTEM."

This tells me you are viewing Agnosticism and Atheism as points on a linear line, on the left, Theism, In the middle Agnosticism, and on the right Atheism, this is FALSE and INTENTIONAL by theologians.

A-Theism is a response to Theism, the a prefix denotes "lack of"
This is a position on belief, you have a belief in a God, or you lack a belief in God

A-Gnosticism is a response to Gnosticism, the A-prefix denotes lack of
This is a position on Knowledge, you claim to have knowledge of a God, or you claim to lack such knowledge of a God

Religion does not want to even acknowledge Gnosticism, because by doing so they have to admit Atheism (a lack of belief) has weight.

With the FALSE linear model, they teach followers that Atheists are COUNTERCLAIMING, claiming that Theists claim there is a God, Agnostics do not know, and Atheists claim there is no God. That is wrong both on linguistics and basic honesty.

Proof of God

“Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me. Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place they always ask me what is my religion.

I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.

On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.

Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line. ”

Bertrand Russell

...if you don’t care to waste your time responding to this one-trick pony.. I think most would understand. I appreciated your post above, not enough to agree with every aspect, but enough not to hound you over the details

@Davesnothere To bypass the fine distinctions and get right to the point, and to speak from a strictly personal point of view (one however I think widely shared by many Agnostics), I am atheistic when it comes to personal, anthropomorphic gods (Abrahamic, Homeric, whatever) because they can be PROVEN (to a 99.9999% certainty) false by simple logic and observation.
However, I am agnostic when it comes to a more abstract god, which wouldn't be describable, definable, or knowable. This may frustrate some atheists, who might say, "If you have no idea what this 'god' might be, then there's nothing to discuss, argue about, or prove or disprove."
Precisely.
Open-mindedness to THIS kind of god would admit wide chasms of ignorance, gaps in our knowledge, science, instruments, and reasoning power which cannot at the present time be bridged.
There ARE circumstantial clues which may point to its existence, however. One obvious (to the point of being trite) are the Gaza pyramids, the precise engineering of which would seem impossible.
Aliens? Evidence of a super-race from an advanced civilization of which we can hardly fathom? One which may have greater knowledge of god, perhaps? I would say so.
YOU may totally disagree. I don't know if or how closely you've looked into this one example, but be that as it may there are numerous clues (I'd say) all around us if we but look, with a skeptical eye, to be sure, but with an open mind.
I completely understand the conventional, mundane, basic arguments atheists use--arrogantly--to dismiss god. I share them, FOR THE OBVIOUS, childish, cartoonish gods promoted by most religions.
But to call themselves agnostic atheists is absurd.
Look, if there is no knowledge, there can be no belief. If you don't KNOW if there is intelligent life on other planets, for instance, you can't BELIEVE IN it.
Of course, EVERYBODY has an opinion. I'd guess most people think it's possible, some, even probable. That's not the same thing.
Another thing: Agnosticist, contrary to your idea of what I'm saying, does NOT belong on a straight line between theism and atheism. Those two 'isms' DO belong on that line, because they are both BELIEF SYSTEMS.
Agnosticism is not a belief system because Agnostics HAVE NO BELIEFS.
Furthermore, this is why, it is my assertion, it is not possible to be BOTH an atheist AND an agnostic. They are mutually exclusive terms. Why can you not understand that?
As a person on that line, you may be 99.9% atheist, but you are still on that line.
As I said, I'm on it with you when it comes to a personal god who takes an interest in my life, answers (or at least listens to) my prayers, and passes judgment on me based on my adherence to certain rules and rituals, and slavish devotion to dogma, etc.
THAT, atheists and many other Agnostics have in common.
BUT 1)I don't KNOW that so I don't BELIEVE it, 2) there are an infinite number of alternatives to that narrow definition of 'god' you ignore.
I have NO hope of convincing you of anything, but I like to take a stab at it every now and then, just for laughs.
It really matters not in the slightest anyway.

@Storm1752 We seem to be misfirng on terminology, when we agree on most points.

You said " I am atheistic"
What does that mean to you? I see that simply as failing to believe, NOT believing those gods are false, because it is no more possible to disprove Zeus than it is Jesus. Rather the theist CLAIM has never been proven but asserted.

Since it has never been proved to be true, there is no rational reason to declare it false, especially when you cannot prove it. Why assume such a burden when it still resides with the religious claim which remains unproven?

IF you make a claim your car can do 200 mph, and I do not believe it, you can easily resolve it with a timed track test. IF you do that AND I do not believe the test, NOW I am DIS-believing, I am not beliving the evidence before my eyes. I am in denial of your proof.

THIS
"because they can be PROVEN (to a 99.9999% certainty) false by simple logic and observation"

is not accurate.

WHY?
Because it is relying upon one persons logic, based on their limited human understanding, and limited education on the claim, and the fact that all these claims are unfalsifiable.

All we can really prove in the method you use is that either the claimant has poor reasoning, or their logic has flaws, or the observations do not match the claim.
ALL of that is the failure of the claimant, not proof they are incorrect in totality, because the claim itself is amorphous, like friggin smoke, undefined.

NONE of that rises to the level of actual evidentiary proof, hard scientific proof of NO GOD of that description.

Thus, to assert that is to take a position of faith, a complete trust that the lack of evidence makes the claim false, when it could be poor evidence, incomplete evidence, a poor clam itself and so on.

There is no way to prove that God, Jesus or what ever, is not simply hiding in the 14th Galaxy to the left.

THIS
"However, I am agnostic when it comes to a more abstract god, which wouldn't be describable, definable, or knowable."
Is the end definition of the Abrahamic God, a mystery unfathomable to men, a totality undefin

"But to call themselves agnostic atheists is absurd."

By your words you are prescisely that.
"However, I am agnostic when it comes to a more abstract god, which wouldn't be describable, definable, or knowable"--Agnostic
Do you believe in this God despite its lack of evidence? NO, but you consider it a potential possibility, correct?
Thus you FAIL to believe, and are Atheist.
Hence, to use the MORE nuanced terminology, your Agnostic (because it cannot be disproven), and Atheist, because you do not believe.

"Furthermore, this is why, it is my assertion, it is not possible to be BOTH an atheist AND an agnostic. They are mutually exclusive terms. Why can you not understand that?"
Because I do not see tham as mutually exclusive terms, at all.
Rather I see it as a more nuanced and superior way to define ones actual position.

They do not both adress the belief in God, one adresses the KNOWLEDGE of God (Gnosis), and the other addresses belief in a God.

"DO belong on that line, because they are both BELIEF SYSTEMS."
If one is a Theist, they have a belief system derived from their religious beleifs>
If one is an Atheist, they do not have a belief system based upon religious claims, and Atheism is itself NOT a belief system, it has no tennets, no doctrine, and no world view, AT ALL.

Atheism is simply the lack of the Theist worldview, and only exists as a term at all because Theism is so dominant. I do not bicycle, but have no need to define myself as a acyclist, I would only have that need if society were almost all cyclists, then there is a social need to explain I don't bike.

If it were a belief system, as you seem to think, then where is its creed, its dogma, its teachings? There are none, only muy non acceptance of religious assertions without evidence.

"Agnosticism is not a belief system because Agnostics HAVE NO BELIEFS."
And Gnosticism is not about belief, but about knowledge claims concering God.. Mystical experiences you believe prove God to you are GNOSIS.

What beliefs are you claiming Atheists have?
Atheism is the lack of belief in God, as I use that term, and as it is defined. Some theist dictionaries still call it a belief there are no Gods, which is false for every atheist I have known.

Dawkins, addressing this EXACT dispute, created a scale, to give it even MORE nuance. So lets try that scale and see whre we are eh?

1.Strong theist. 100% probability of God. In the words of Carl Jung: "I do not believe, I know."

2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100%. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."

3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50% but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."

4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50%. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."

5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50% but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."

6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

I, like Dawkins, am a 6 on this scale. I see position 7 and 1, as positions of strong faith, based on assertion alone without evidentiary proof one way or the other, thus foolish positions.

Where are you?

@Davesnothere
I'm saying there is no basis for belief or non-belief. You say DIS-belief. I say there's no difference
Speaking of hell: if you want to make an assertion 'god' is evil, and on that basis say it is possible and understandable hell exists, that's one thing.
If you want to claim 'god' is an entity with human emotions, among them anger, hatred, and a desire for vengeance against disloyal humans, them hell could be a real place.
I don't believe IN any kind of god, but I DO believe the existence of an impersonal, unknowable 'god' is certainly a reasonable idea, because there MUST be an Explanation for matter and energy. They are two forms of the same thing. What IS that thing? God? Maybe, if you want to call it that. Does it have consciousness of itself? Well, WE have consciousness of OURSELVES, and we are made up of matter and energy. So I suppose you could say we are representative of 'god' in that sense.
But what does that MEAN?
No clue.
WE are not immortal. But matter and energy are.
So how are we to understand this? Do we "believe IN" matter and energy? The periodic table? Should we worship the sun? We might as well worship a stone. Or a goat. Or a rainbow. Or a pile of excrement for that matter.
What I am saying is it is not possible to understand god.
That's my 'belief.'
Atheist--believes IN the NON-existence of 'god.'
Agnostic--neither believes nor disbelieves. Thinks 'god' is not something one can be spoken of as existing or not existing.
Of COURSE 'god' exists! Of COURSE 'he' doesn't!
The problem is, we have no idea what 'god' is...IT cannot be spoken of that way.
Take 'dark matter:' does it exist?
Physicists say it must. But what IS it? What is matter? What is energy? I don't know. Do you?
Without the context of a 'supreme deity,' the word ceases to have any meaning to a human mind trapped in four-dimensional space and time.
So, to a 'neo-deist,' God exists as an abstract concept, but we have no way to measure, qualify, quantify, identify, or in any other way describe what IT is.
And THAT is what frustrates atheists about at least THIS agnostics' viewpoint.
I don't know.
Yes IT exists because WE do. Or is it your opinion we don't exist? Who are we? We, along with everything else in the physical universe we see, and everything we can't see or detect with instruments, everything in other dimensions (if they exist), EVERYTHING is god. Or nothing is. Or both!
So, I ask you again, does god exist?
Doesn't it depend on what you mean by god?
That SAID, I DO think reincarnation is a real 'thing,' at least for some people. An afterlife is a real possibility. There are clues and a certain kind of "evidence," circumstantial and otherwise, which could lead a reasonable person to speculate about these things.
But that's it. That's all we have.
I understand if you think what I'm saying is utter nonsense I myself agree that COULD be the case .
One final thing: I DO NOT believe any human being called 'Jesus Christ,' for instance, existed. I happen to think the evidence is clear. You may disagree in some particulars.
But at least we can TALK intelligently about it.

@Storm1752 "I'm saying there is no basis for belief or non-belief. You say DIS-belief. I say there's no difference"
You tell me you have a flying car.
I say "BS, prove it"--fail to believe(non-belief)
You fly it up ala George Jetson
I say "BS, thats not a car, its a plane (or ultralight or whatever)--disbelief, a failure to believe despite evidence.
noun 1. inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real

I think with the God question, disbelief is impossible until God is proven. Failure to believe is simply being from Missouri and saying "show me".

"I don't believe IN any kind of god, but I DO believe the existence of an impersonal, unknowable 'god' is certainly a reasonable idea, because there MUST be an Explanation for matter and energy."
Arguement from ignorance, because we do have an explanation for matter and energy does not equal postualting "an unknowable" as an answer. Can you even have evidence for an unknowable?
Is your sigil of belief a question mark?

"So how are we to understand this? "
We do not have to, no such thing is required. We don't know a lot of things yet we live and evolve.
Why does this "The God question" make you feel unstable without any answer at all? It seems to me this is so.

"Physicists say it must. But what IS it? What is matter? What is energy? I don't know. Do you?"
NO, I don't. SFW?

Why assume ANYTHING into a vaccum of actual knowledge?

I think this is true of all humans
"God exists as an abstract concept"
BUT those abstract concepts both do not match person to person and have zero evidentiary proof. I wrote a snippet about this years ago . . .

Conflating Conceptual Philosophic reality with Practical reality.

With a lot of hard work, with sweat, blood, and tears, we sometimes wrench things from the Philosophic land of Concepts into practical reality. No one believed the plane would fly, except the inventor who flew it; when trains were new people thought the speed alone would not allow you to breathe, until they did it; My own mother told me the Moon was made of green cheese as a boy(as a method of teaching critical thought), until Neil Armstrong.

Conceptual Philosophic reality exists as a total of everything which was ever imagined or ever shall be imagined. Thus the Gods of Homer and Egypt reside alongside Yahweh as concepts.

Few believe in the former today, but they will remain concepts for a very long time.
Many believe in the latter both as a concept and as a reality which is unfalsifiable.

So when you ask "When will the lack of evidence disprove a conceptual notion?", it will not, it will prove it impractical, or so impractical as to be implausible or impossible.
People will believe, for a long time despite that due to cultural and cognitive bias combined. In the past, in Religion, this was often expressed on the battlefield, would the followers of Thor win or the Christians? When enough Christians won enough times, there were scant few Norsemen left to follow the Norse Gods and so their world became Christian.

It is not any Atheists Job or duty to disprove that which was never proven, namely some god or other. Rather just illustrate it has never been proven, why it is likely never to be proven, and that there are actually better explanations for reality.

Proving God is a Theists headache, not mine.

@Davesnothere Better explanations for reality...hmmm...like what? I'VE never heard of a good one.
The Buddhists say the universe expands and contracts in an eternal cycle: Big Bang from a tiny speck, expansion, burnout, implosion back into a tiny speck, explosion, on and on and on, forever. A reality which is born, lives, dies, is reborn, etc.
They say the physical world (Maya) has always existed, no beginning, no end.
Might be an "explanation," might be bllsht; regardless, it really doesn't REALLY explain anything, does it?
I have a feeling it WILL be explained eventually, which will prove to also be the 'explanation' of 'god.'
I think extra-planetary civilizations far older, more advanced and sophisticated than us already have many if not all of these explanations.
So are we fundamentally disagreeing on our definitions of god?
This has been my main point all along, and I guess I might not have 'explained' myself well enough.

If I call Jetson's conveyance a 'flying car' and you call it a 'plane,' we are both using 21st Century words and concepts, right?
What if it was actually an antigravitational device, and George Jetson ( being from the technologically superior 25th Century) called it a 'levitron?' What if despite appearances it was nothing like a car OR a plane?
You and I would both be wrong, wouldn't we? We'd be mis-identifying the 'evidence' of our eyes, falsely defining it based on ignorance.
10 centuries after they bury George, 'levitrons' would've given way long since to teleporters, wormhole transporters, and interdimensional orbs or saucers. We would be totally amazed, speechless. Our brains would likely freeze and lock up! These people, only 1300 years later, might even appear to be 'gods!' Or, they'd have made contact with 'god,' or at the very least know it's fundamental properties!
Anyway, our differing definitions and terminology, as you say, may be the real issue.
Finally, I'm happy to report I'm feeling stable, despite my lack of answers due to man's state of scientific ignorance. But holding up nicely, thank you.
I AM nervous YOU risk stress-related problems stemming from your concern for my mental health.
Fear not.
Rest assured I feel no need to 'prove' god; keep in mind I'm aware that IS at present impossible. I'm not saying it even exists anyway--just that it's possible IF one first finds out what god (ultimate basic knowledge of the physical world, for starters?) is, BEFORE trying to define it.
IT must be something; surely you're not saying scientists already understand everything?
I want to clarify: I do NOT believe Zeus, Thor, Yahweh, Odin, Jesus, etc., will ever be proven, in the same way I don"t believe demons will be proven to cause physical or mental illness or death, for example (though BELIEF IN them CAN really screw you up, I've read somewhere).
These are to me dated, obsolete concepts, as are concepts of a personal, supernatural god with magical powers, and so forth.

No, I'm not delusional...I just think men and women have lots to learn, lots to research and discover.
In fact, I'm thinking of inventing a science-based religion to update, modernize, even replace our present ones. Might be slow-going, though.

@Storm1752 "I have a feeling it WILL be explained eventually, which will prove to also be the 'explanation' of 'god.'"

Sorry but I find your emotional response or feelings about how it will all work out someday to be simply a bald assertion based on your faith, which is what that sentence is, a faith " it WILL be explained eventually,"
By a God you do believe in just do not understand, nor can explain, define or show evidence for.

When you have actual evidence and defintions of wtf your God is, tell me.

I have better things to do.

@Davesnothere No I do not believe in God, and if there IS such a thing it probably won't be "explaining" anything to me because it probably isn't an entity with a brain and a mouth and thoughts, etc.
Who I'm envisioning EXPLAINING these things will be scientists, in all likelihood, and they almost certainly won't be explaining anything to me because I will be long gone.
Scientists are learning new things every day, though, so I haven't entirely given up hope.
It seems you are very orthodox in your atheistic beliefs, fancy yourself agnostic but cannot accept many heretical agnostic thoughts, so in reaction to what I'm saying accuse me of being a theist, which is I assure you not true.

It's sad you can't understand my position, but it's not unusual for people to have divergent thoughts.
In the meantime you will cling to your beliefs and adopt a passive-aggressive attitude of "show me the evidence."
Haha. My good fellow, I'm under no obligation to show you anything.
If you want to ignore all the evidence available literally in the palm of your hand, for such things as reincarnation, psychism, and the Gaza pyramids, and MANY other things, do so with my unnecessary permission and acquiescence.
None of those things require a belief in god, btw. They MAY require of some people an open mind, however.

Yes! Good strategy/ Should be applied here as well when arguing atheist vs agnostic,

Yes some people believe they have the only truth

Agnostic atheist is actually a thing. One is a statement of knowledge, one a statement of belief.

@CommonHuman One is a statement of belief (Agnostic; ie, ‘anything can be true’ ) - one is a statement of fact; there is no god or gods as described by any human that’s ever lived - period

[edited to remove goofy faces due to punctuation]

Agnostic adresses knowledge
As an agnostic I have no knowledge of God
Atheism adresses belief

As an agnostic I have no knowledge of Gods, therefore I do not believe in any Gods, which makes me both Agnostic and Atheist.

@Varn THIS
"one is a statement of fact; there is no god or gods as described by any human that’s ever lived - period"
Is Gnostic Atheism
a belief there are no Gods because no one has ever shown evidence of them.

MOST atheists never adopt such a belief, because we cannot see 99% of the cosmos, so we know we are ignorant of a hell of a lot.

Being ignorant is not a valid reason to believe in things or to make claims one cannot prove.

@Davesnothere Looks like a convoluted justification for fence-sitting I like to keep it simple, and real ~

@Davesnothere Much apparently hinges on the definition of a god, if beyond proof. No one will ever know ‘everything,’ but most learn to recognize a lie. Whether they acquire the strength to call it that becomes the question..

Describe to me the god you aren’t aware of, and I’ll continue to request both proof of it’s existence - and it’s supposed influence on us. Even a smidgen of proof... It’s up to those making the claim to prove it.

Agnosticism remains a stepping-stone to Atheism. Some may never make it … but at least it’s a step in the right direction

@Varn Religious theologians actually teach a false narrative about Atheism and Agnosticism. Your opening statement tells me you are still laboring under that.

"Agnosticism remains a stepping-stone to Atheism.."

This tells me you are viewing Agnosticism and Atheism as points on a linear line, on the left, Theism, In the middle Agnosticism, and on the right Atheism, this is FALSE and INTENTIONAL by theologians.

A-Theism is a response to Theism, the a prefix denotes "lack of"
This is a position on belief, you have a belief in a God, or you lack a belief in God

A-Gnosticism is a response to Gnosticism, the A-prefix denotes lack of
This is a position on Knowledge, you claim to have knowledge of a God, or you claim to lack such knowledge of a God

Religion does not want to even acknowledge Gnosticism, because by doing so they have to admit Atheism (a lack of belief) has weight.

With the FALSE linear model, they teach followers that Atheists are COUNTERCLAIMING, claiming that Theists claim there is a God, Agnostics do not know, and Atheists claim there is no God. That is wrong both on linguistics and basic honesty.

@Varn I am an Ignostic

I was raised a believer
AS a believer I thought understanding God of the utmost import.
SO I studied that.
Which is why I am today an Igtheist/Ignostic

Ignosticism is an Epistomologic position; it is a set of ideas refuting the importance of determining the existence of God. It claims that knowledge regarding the reality of God is altogether unprofitable.

It is the idea that every theological position assumes too much about the concept of God and other theological concepts; including (but not limited to) concepts of faith, spirituality, heaven, hell, afterlife, damnation, salvation, sin and the soul.

Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because the term god has no coherent and unambiguous definition.

IF you cannot even define what you are talking about, or consider it beyond human understanding, how is it you can claim to know anything about it and keep your intellectual integrity intact?

@Davesnothere Thought of the day:

Religionist states - ‘It’s fine to trash the planet, because when it’s no longer capable of supporting human life, jesus will swoop down and whisk us off to another one!’

Agnostic responds - ‘Oh,’ ‘OK.’

Atheist responds to the same - ‘You are delusional and dangerous!’

I’m Atheist, pure ..if not simple My guide to Atheism was Madalyn O’Hair. She described Agnostics as “Fence Sitters.” I agree.. They may do some interesting back-flips as they occasionally visit the ground … but if climbing back onto the fence ..and talking endlessly about how they’re ..something special, something beyond belief or description leaves me laughing, out loud

Sure, I wish they had what it took to live on the ground with me, but if they don’t, there’s little more I can do than what I ordinarily do as an open, honest, Atheist. Anything ‘in between’ the two falls short of reality, no matter how long & hard one argues.. But I will continue to speak up when Atheists are linked with ‘believers’ of any ilk - cuz it’s not true ~

@CommonHuman Agnostic atheist is not a 'thing.'

@Varn To me your conflating political apathy with antitheism.

First, the ecosystem has nothing to do with religion. Its a social political matter, and only ther most fundamentalist Christians have such a notion as "let the planet Die, Jesus is coming and he will make it new"
Moderate Christians believe humans are the gaurdians of earth, the garden God wants humanity to tend, and that we suck as gardeners.

"My guide to Atheism was Madalyn O’Hair. She described Agnostics as “Fence Sitters", while I appreciate Ms O'hairs constitutional stand, she was not a very decent person (IMO), her whole organization was riddled with fraud, and it was these crimes which in the end resulted in her death, was it not?

To O'Hair, her Atheism was a political stance, not a position on religion as much as a political position against religious coercion through law.

So Honestly I do not think much of O'Hair beyond her valiant court case.

It looks to me like you are judging all Agnostics as insufficiently committesd politically, and then demeaning them by calling them fence sitters.

There is no fence to sit upon. There is a an unproven claim of a God.

I do not believe.
hence I am atheist

NONE of this applies to me at all . . .
"They may do some interesting back-flips as they occasionally visit the ground … but if climbing back onto the fence ..and talking endlessly about how they’re ..something special, something beyond belief or description"

So it looks to me like you are prejudaced against agnostics based on how you are defining that term.

THIS describes me pretty well.

"I am a tiny, insignificant, ignorant bit of carbon.  I have one life and it is short and unimportant, but thanks to recent scientific advances I get to live twice as long as my great, great, great, great, uncleses, and auntses.  Twice as long to live this life of mine!  Twice as long to love this wife of mine. Twice as many years of friends and wine, of sharing curries and getting shitty at good looking hippies with fairies on their spines and butterflies on their titties."--Tim Minchin

@Davesnothere “To me” - Yes, apparently to you. Not me, nor the Atheists I’ve met in life. If it requires lingusticial gymnastics to carve out a space to hide, I’m sorry. Seems wasted energy and fear to this Atheist.

Your brushing off the greatest Atheist of my lifetime fills in the rest… And hey - you’re not even the Original Poster.. Keep digging, if you must … but it’s better than you imagine up here on the plane of reality

@Varn "A place to hide?"
From what would I be hiding?

Greatest Atheist?
How the hell could you ever be such a thing, when Atheism is itself not a thing, but the lack of a thing?

O'Hair was a Political Activist driven by Organized Religion to defend her (and thus our) human right not to believe. I apreciate that effort. She was a vehement anti-theist. It looks to me like you are conflating her anti-theism with her Atheism.

Proof of God

“Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me. Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place they always ask me what is my religion.

I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.

On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.

Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line. ”

Bertrand Russell

@Davesnothere ...this is obviously ‘your thing’ Remain in intellectual purgatory if you wish … just glad I won’t be finding you at any Atheist Meetups

@Varn LOL, what a catch all of terms.
Intellectual purgatory, and who put me there?

Your Catholic God? as purgatory is Catholic (and discontinued by that religion several years ago now)

Agreement on how a term is used in uneccessary for communication, only understanding of how thew term is being used.

and hey, if I am in purgatory with Bertrand and many others, including many other atheist and agnostic philosophers, I am in damn fine company.

Tha way you use the term Atheist seems to mean antitheist, not atheist.

@LimitedLight wait - so does that mean the thoughts that were expressed were not in your mind ? I'm confused. But life goes on anyway ...

I compared both beginning sentences of both posts and this is not a duplicate.

@JohnnyQB oh you may be right. i didn't read carefully enough i guess. also this isn't written all that clearly....

g

@LimitedLight Actually i am. I have cataracts. My eyesight sucks but on the other hand my reading comprehension is good. I do my best and meanwhile your post was less than coherent, so that didn't exactly help. Notice other comments indicating that you were perceived as unclear even by folks whose eyesight may well be better than mine (not difficult to achieve).

g

i don't care how they think. fact is they don't. they suspend thought. i literally make one assumption about believers and agnostic theists... that they believe in god(s) as defined by their religious practice. come to think of it, i don't even think it is an assumption. i believe, that they have likely stated in some way, that they believe in their texts/woo/sky daddy. if this hasn't occurred, why would i have responded?

if i respond with a blanket statement that their texts are flawed (in general or specifically with evidence) am i one of your referenced? or am i making a point? should i not make this point?

regardless of your view, i must tell you, that i won't stop making the point(s.)

go ahead... tell me something along the lines of, "katrina was in response to a planned gay rally."

dare you. i may make some assumptions and say some truly hateful (from your perspective) things.

@larsatrg I'm not sure what you are referring to but i have no idea what you posted and my post was not in any reference to you. My post was in response to people that think that Christians sit around wondering if atheists are right and they are wrong and that atheists scare them because they can use reason to counter religion.

My point was that most christians are 100% sure they are right and that they view atheists as the devils helpers who need to be saved. Christians do not think rationally on this subject and they are not even listening to the atheist rational points. You are right they do not use reason. Christians fear of hell disconnect them from any rational thoughts

@abyers1970 this is what i first reacted to, "I keep seeing atheists make blanket comments about christians and how they think."

maybe incorrectly, i took your response to the OP as solidarity against ill treatment of religion. or the religious. i was unsuccessfully trying to point out i don't believe i do what you are saying, and don't see what you see here with people thinking christians give atheists a second thought. maybe i do, i just don't interpret same. what i see and tend to react to are "atheists are this" posts. they almost never capture me.

i did not mean insult and i appreciate you expounding. i think i understand your points.

i will add that my expression of contempt at the last (and not to you, to them) is in fact spawned from the type of thinking you ascribed to christians. sit me down and feed me some shit that isn't true, and follow it up with things like i quoted? what response could they expect? not mine? good. i don't need em.

@larsatrg I was a Christian for 30 years. Had some life changing events happened that made me question everything. I live in Bible Belt and everyone I know is Christian. The fear of hell has totally disconnected them from thinking rationally. I researched to find the truth and at the end of the research there was no Great Oz only a funny little man behind the curtain.

@abyers1970 i think congratulations. idk. maybe it is my hardwiring. maybe my exposure to other cultures and religions as a kid. mostly it was so arcane. catholics. that and watching christians argue over the same god. i was questioning everything and done by about 11, and they made me go till 16. anyone who wanted to take up the argument or was in ear shot got it. i suppose that lingers. i hope your proximate christians are palatable. if not i wish you at least a place to decompress.