I am wondering why this site isn't called non-believers.com? Agnostic tends to exclude atheists like me.
You must be new here, it is IMO 80% atheists, 15% agnostics, (many moving closer to atheism by the minute), 3% republicans and 2% trolls (very religious people attempting to make /find ways to insinuate religion into our thinking..... they are fun to find & humiliate!)
Because I don't want to type a "-" when I type in a website.
Seriously, don't sweat the small stuff. On this site, as in life, no matter the label, you have a whole spectrum of individuals who have the same label. Welcome, graba cold one, and relax. We're all just chickens here.
As @aralt stated below, agnosticism is "why you believe/how sure are you of that belief". Atheism is "what you believe".
Agnostic Atheist: a non-believer because there's no proof yet of existence of a god
Gnostic Atheist: a non-believer because I know there's no proof
Agnostic Theist: a believer because there's no proof yet of non-existence of a god
Gnostic Theist: a believer because I know there's proof of a god. (I hear his voice every morning.)
Theism/atheism is an answer to "Do you believe?" And Gnosticism/Agnosticism is an answer to "How certain are you of that belief?"
You must be new here, it is IMO 80% atheists, 15% agnostics, (many moving closer to atheism by the minute), 3% republicans and 2% trolls (very religious people attempting to make /find ways to insinuate religion into our thinking..... they are fun to find & humiliate!)
I think most atheists are agnostic in so far as that they (we) admit that while we don't believe in God and/or don't see any evidence supporting the claim, there is no real evidence (besides a general lack of evidence) proving that there is no god.
I view god (both big and little 'g' as a form of cryptid. Most (chupacabra, fairies, skunkman) most likely don't exist. Some (like the unicorn or Loch Ness monster) sorta exist or are based on real things, even if it is not accurate. And some few have been proven to actually exist (the Narwhal was concidered a fictitious creature until the late 19th and early 20th centuries).
You can't definitively say there is no god without evidence to support that claim, which doesn't really seem to exist or be even practical. The problem is that the agnostic and atheist labels get tossed around as if they are describing the same aspect of a person when, particularly in modern usage, they don't.
Agnostic/gnostic is a knowledge claim, atheism/theism is a belief claim.
Suck it up buttercup. We're all just here to seek refuge from the onslaught of religious propaganda that exists everywhere else. I'm an atheist.
Also, "nonbelievers" is one word, not hyphenated.
You're welcome.
I disagree. I think that properly speaking, everyone is agnostic with regard to the issue of deities. We simply cannot know for sure. As I put on my profile, I am philosophically agnostic but culturally atheist. This means that I acknowledge it is impossible to know for sure, but also, that I regard it as a waste of time to chase the question - no different than the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy.
@David1955 It’s not so much an assumption as a matter of definition. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You cannot prove the absence of Big Foot or aliens who have visited this planet. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s a waste of time to worry about them - and deities - because of lack of evidence. But you also cannot pretend to know something that is unknowable. It’s epistemological fact that the question is unknowable.
@David1955 I think we're probably just talking past each other at this point and it is a misunderstanding. I'm not trying to tell you how to identify yourself, nor trying to take the wind out of your sails with regard to the strength of your stance on atheism. As a matter of fact, I tend to lead with the identity of atheism myself, but offer more nuance when someone cares to find out more about my beliefs and understanding.
The point I'm trying to make is not one about identity, culture, or political stance. The point I'm trying to make is about rigorous philosophical definitions. It's all well and good to deny the existence of something for which there is no evidence. You and I agree on that point, possibly more than you know. But I think it is also necessary to acknowledge the facts of the situation, with regard to what is technically knowable and what is not.
Certainly, when someone says they are agnostic there is a whole set of cultural beliefs, assumptions, and associations that come with the moniker, which include things like: might possibly believe in God, wishy-washy on the issue, hold open the possibility that belief in God might be OK, on the fence, etc., etc. That cultural marker of agnostic is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the root meaning of the word, which is simply "do not know". That is a factually accurate description of every person everywhere, on the subject of deity, regardless of their beliefs.
Also, not that I want to rely on the logical fallacy of appeal to authority here, but you might be interested to know that I was enlightened on this point for the first time by Dan Barker, the head of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, when he gave a talk near me. It was a side point in response to a question from the audience, but it opened my mind to the facts.
@David1955 what if some evidence reveals itself...in the unforseen future?
Years ago, I was watching a nature channel and I was fascinated by a symbiotic relationship that I saw between a tree (species I can't remember) and an ant colony (species I can't remember). This particular tree provided a nectar that was poisonous to all species of life EXCEPT this one particular ant colony. When the tree came under threat it would vibrate - sending a message to this ant colony that it was being invaded. In return, the ant colony would gather it's army, climb the tree and then expel the invader. For a reward, the tree would provide a nectar that only they could eat.
As an atheist or even if I was a deist - I could come up with every scientific reason under the book for this symbiotic relationship. But for some, it is a symbol of perfection and for them it leaves a little doubt in their mind as to whether or not there might have been a creator because to them it's too perfect.
That's the slim difference between being an agnostic and an non-theist and that slim difference opens up a ton of opportunities to have rational conversations unless we use this forum to ask why some people prefer Pizza over Tacos or Dogs over Cats.
It certainly doesn't. Not all of us have reached the higher state of pure atheism. I would consider myself one of those. But I don't see how calling it agnostic.com excludes atheists. I think most of the members here are probably atheists. Further, agnostic, means that you question the existence of God. I suppose you could argue, like my ex, that you are absolutely certain that there is no God. But then most would say "you question the existence of God" thus agnostic would include your position. You question God's existence and you are sure that you know the answer to that question.
They mentioned in the site description all secular individuals are welcome here.
I like this site and consider it, generally, as a gathering place for critical thinkers (although that hasn't always been my experience here). I don't really care what it's called.
If we start to worry about excluding folks, it won't matter what the site is called, it will exclude someone.
I call myself an atheist, among other things. I used to call myself an agnostic in my younger years.
Hand-waving-ly:
I take the term Atheist to mean 100% does not believe in a "God".
I take the term Agnostic to mean ambivalent, or unsure; not really willing to make the call about the existence of "God" one way or the other.
Also - I don't really mind how other folks define these terms - to each his own.
Quibble about the nuances if you like - it won't change my mind, or my life.
I do not subscribe to any religion or believe in any "magical being in the sky".
I also don't believe in Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, or that there is a Tea Pot in orbit around Saturn.
I liken religion to being in a fandom, but taking it one step (or many steps) too far.
When you start to believe the fairytale and the characters as real (and everlasting, all knowing, all powerful, the answer to all, or whatever...)
I thought 'agnostics' was at the top of a list, which includes atheists?