This is not what agnostic means.

Theism/atheism and gnosticism/agnosticism are two separate claims. Gnosticism means having knowledge (in the case of theism, having knowledge regarding the existence of a god or gods). A gnostic is one who claims to have knowledge of such existence. An agnostic does not claim to have such knowledge. A theist claims to believe that a god or gods exist while an atheist does not. Therefore, a gnostic theist would be one who believes that such an entity exists and claims to have knowledge of it, an agnostic theist would be one who believes but does not claim to have knowledge, a gnostic atheist is somebody who claims to have knowledge regarding the existence of a god or gods and does not believe, and an agnostic atheist is somebody who does not claim to have knowledge about the existence of gods or gods and does not believe.

This is wrong. An agnostic is one who thinks evidence for the supernatural is not possible to attain. An agnostic is not in between a theist or an atheist. Agnosticism is a position on knowledge, the terms atheism and theism refers to beliefs.

An analogy can be that the theist thinks the car is a Ferrari, the atheist thinks it is not a Ferrari. The agnostic is someone who notes that is too dark to see properly. He can still hold either belief, but expect differences compared to someone who is not agnostic.

Not sure if you came up with this on your own or not, but this is an excellent analogy that I will use from now on!

Oh such flattery. I haven't seen it anywhere else, but it would be weird if it was unique.

Perhaps it would be slightly more accurate to say the atheist does not hold the belief that the car is a Ferrari, since if he knew for certain it was either a Ferrari or a Lambo he could still be an atheist without thinking that it's not a Ferrari.

you can be fully convinced there is a god yet understand that proof is beyond your means which would make you an agnostic theist

I got this from wiki and it seems a lot like what some posters (luckyme, tame_deuces, deorum? ) call atheism: "Smith coined the term implicit atheism to refer to "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" and explicit atheism to refer to the more common definition of conscious disbelief. This sort of atheism seems to differ from the OP's definition, and from several other atheists. It also differs from the mainline dictionaries since it doesn't require disbelief or a rejection of theism nor does it require a belief. It's a third position where no stance can be taken. The concept of diety is so unusual it can't be conceived enough to form any belief or disbelief. Hopefully I'm gettiing closer.

Well, my view on god(s) and religion(s) goes beyond my atheism.

I claim that atheism is nothing but at the bare minimum a lack of belief in god(s). I would never claim that my belief regarding god(s) is only a lack of belief in them, but my belief in god is not simply that "I believe they do not exist", and therefore I reject this implication when set forth.

This isn't particularly unique. It would be rather dumb if some decided "theist" implied "hinduist", and began harassing the Christian theists on this forum for reliance on the bible and how this was against their religion and how polytheism rendered the idea of monotheism irrational.

I don't see how most atheists can even be considered atheists. Most believe that something created the universe, correct? And that the universe is expanding, correct? Therefore creating more and more. Well, what is that something? It doesn't necessarily have to be God, or something in human or animal form. But it is something that is a postulated preternatural being. So if you believe something like that could exist, you aren't exactly an atheist. Something created everything.

gunth continues to postulate what others believe while getting most of it wrong.

You can be an atheist and give no thought to the creation of the universe.

I doubt they've been polled. Many believe the universe is eternal.

They certainly don't have to postulate it as a 'preternatural being.'

No one says something created everything.

A lot share the view that "the big bang" created the universe. They were questions kurto, not presented as facts.

Just because something is eternal, doesn't mean it didn't start from something...and if that something is eternal, it still exists today.

funny

Could be purely deterministic.

If this is the case, can't you kiss any chance of there being freewill goodbye?

I also use to assume atheists must be determinists, and I think they all are mostly, they just don't want to admit it to themselves as it goes against there individuality.

Alot of atheists can fall under this category also its quite interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

Ya , they do use terms like probably, could be , what if, etc. , an awful lot.

I think that might be true because we dont like to claim truths for things we dont have a lot of knowledge of.

Or i think.

betair, its fairly obvious that you should take some time to understand the Bible.

But the Big Bang is not a preternatural being.

If something has existed eternally then it doesn't have to have started from something. Creating a creator doesn't solve the problem of eternity because something has to have made your something.

Not sure why you think this is funny.

"Hey, little 10 year old boy.... do you believe in a god?"

Little boy - "What's a God?"

"So that's a no. What do you think created the universe?"

Little Boy - "I don't know. I just like Yo Gabba Gabba."

See. There's an atheist who doesn't think about things like who made it all.

I think you are incorrect sir.

The fact that he finds this noteable says much about him.

Are you sure about this? What would you call it then?

So it was just there. It is something that has existed forever but nothing made it. It has just always been there....What do we know abut things that is certain for pretty much anything you know of, if not everything? It was created...a result of something....
Little 10 year old boy:

"Daddy, where did we come from?"

^^ that sounds quite a bit more real...

Ok.

Something? Created?

Could be.

Creating? Size is not energy or mass.

Could be nothing, could be something, could be an intelligent teapot.

Ok.

Eternal? Being?

Something? Exist?

Something? Created? Everything?


I don't really have much to say.

Im tired of saying this but

God = Omnipresent, omniscient creativity.


That solves everything.

"Could be"

What is it about the human mind that when it comes to things it doesn't completely understand (like the universe), they must follow different rules/laws, w/e than the things they do understand.

Nobody knows exactly how the pyramids were built. So do you lean on the assumption that they were just there?