Can we admit that agnosticism is the logical way of thinking?

An agnostic believes there is no right nor wrong on this subject.

 

there are multiple subjective working definitions of atheism and always have been.

and in any case what people call themselves to define who they are determines what the dictionary says, not the other way round.

 

I don't think all 'Christians' believe in God. They just title themselves as Christian because they believe it puts them on a pedestal in society. How many times do I have to read about someone saying they're praying for someone/something when in reality they probably don't even know how to pray or don't pray.

It would be a great Seinfeld episode.

 

Absolutely. To be honest, there is no point.

 

That's a pretty right-on statement, actually.

 

So let's say you're a pedophile, but you call yourself a youth-mentor.

What would the dictionary say?

 

in·con·gru·ous
/inˈkäNGgro͞oəs/

 

Yep. Words mean nothing when the people who use them change what they mean.

Thanks for proving my point. Doesn't mean I at all am buying the BS, though.

 

atheism has never meant exclusively a positive claim that no possible god(s) exist. it has never been used exclusively in that manner, and it is easy to find definitions and descriptions that include simple lack of belief in a god. it's impractical and silly to insist on your specific definition when the vast majority of people who call themselves atheists now and in the past have meant something different by it. you're just stubbornly propping up a straw man so you can rant against it.

 

different dictionarys say different things.

atheism technically simply means the rejection of theism (against theism). from there it's a matter of personal interpretation.

 

I don't know why you'd be so defensive toward something that you don't believe in, apparently. You're redefining atheism. I'm simply stating that I'm OK with that, as long as you recognize that me as an agnostic, and you as an atheist, have nothing in common in terms of our thoughts on deities and theism.

 

Yep. As an absolute rejection. Finally you agree.

Only if you want to redefine an absolute.

 

atheists in general are defensive because your strict definition is employed by theists (and you) in straw man arguments claiming atheism requires faith etc.

actually we have ALMOST EVERYTHING in common, likely with only one exception - how we view the possible existence specifically of Yahweh. that's the heart of my point.

even by your definition you're (presumably) an atheist when it comes to Ra, Thor, Zeuss etc.

even though i don't believe in them by your definition i'm openly agnostic when it comes to deism, pantheism etc.

most non-believers (including you) are both atheist and agnostic. in fact any believer who admits that faith is required is both a theist and an agnostic. those words describe different aspects of belief, not different sides of arbitrary dividing lines on a belief scale.

 

rejection of the evidence for theism. rejection of the notion that theism is in any way justified. that's different than actually claiming the knowledge that no possible version of god exists. very few people do that. the latter definition doesn't have much practical use, which is why most people just attach "strong" and "weak" or other descriptive qualifiers when they want to differentiate.

 

you're an atheist, denny. accept it

 

Yep

 

The evolution part of cells aren't the question in my mind. I am talking about how the cell came and programmed without life programming it? Who or what made the egg?