If someone were to contend:
"I claim to be Agnostic because ultimately I do not know. You claim to be Atheist meaning that you do know."
then would you agree with this statement or do you think that atheism has a different meaning?
For me:
Agnostic means no solid belief about the whether deities exist or not.
Atheist means no solid belief in any deities at this time.
Theist mean a solid belief in one or more deities.
I'm both agnostic and atheist. The difference in the terms is subtle, but I don't claim to know whether there are gods or some creative source that we just haven't discovered yet, but I don't live under the rule of any god at this time.
I surely don't live under the rule of the Biblical gods, Roman/Greek gods, Norse gods, etc. I'm of the mind they are all mythological gods. Only true for the telling of a story.
While I love the idea of metaphor and story telling to help us understand aspects of life, I am not of the mind to go "all in" with total literal belief in any of them.
It's fun to imagine the various scenarios and perhaps moral lessons in the stories, as long as we realize they are just stories, not history. I'm not of the mind to think that was actually ever the intent of any of the mythologies we know about from the ages. It's wise to learn about them and how they mirrored and affected the cultures for which they were intended.
Mythologies have their place along with actual history, education and scientific exploration, but we should not lose our humanity with any of them. We do have wonderful human qualities (along with some selfish ones) and learning to coexist with other humans usually comes from civil laws, society norms, common sense and etiquette, far more than religion.
One thing I know for sure, is that the current common religions were created for a different time and place and have no relevance in our immediate culture.
This back and forth of these terms definitions keeps going. I know a deity does not exist and that is all that matters.
You can be both atheist and agnostic…they are not mutually exclusive. I am both…atheist because I can’t say I believe something without evidence…agnostic because I do not know if evidence exists, but I am willing and open to believe if any credible evidence is found.
like most people though, if you have made a decision based on the absence of evidence, you do not dwell or reconsider it on any routine basis. You hold the view of the decision. Being open to new or contrary evidence is just a general outlook in life, whether a philosophical issue, or in deciding the best route to the movies, For what it is worth, I would view you as an atheist. IMHO
@Switchcraft I am an atheist…I already said I was! That doesn’t mean I’m not also agnostic as I’ve already explained. I’m not arrogant enough to say that I will never believe, because that would be to categorically rule out the possibility of keeping my mind open to considering any hitherto undiscovered facts which could establish the existence of a god or gods. The laws of probability would suggest that such evidence needed to convince me of such are negligible to nonexistent, but no matter how remote or how unlikely, I still say “show me the proof and I’m a convert”. It’s a challenge that nobody has been able to answer so far….
@Marionville on this subject I will admit to being arrogant then