(June 3, 2011 at 5:09 am)bozo Wrote:(June 1, 2011 at 11:51 pm)tavarish Wrote: Saying one is "agnostic" rather than "atheist", when the two mean exactly the same thing is a cop out, often to avoid the negative connotations of atheism.
The OP's first argument is full of holes, and I think they should definitely refer to a dictionary before making a statement.
Sorry tavarish ( and others ) but the two don't mean the same thing.
An agnostic says it is not known if god exists.
An atheist disbelieves in god...period.
The atheist position is a stronger statement as to the improbability of god's existence.
I can't get the attraction for adding agnostic before atheist. How many times on this site do we explain the atheist position to the religious by stating atheism is no more than not believing in god?????
Would the site logo be better for changing the wording to " agostic atheist forums "? I think not.
Thanks for playing.
An atheist doesn't believe in God. He claims no belief.
An agnostic doesn't know if there is a God. He claims no knowledge.
Please tell me how being an agnostic in this context doesn't necessarily lead you to atheism, as they deal with the same entity. Atheism isn't a positive statement, it's simply a lack of belief. It isn't necessarily "no gods exist", but it is "I don't believe in gods".
The reason some put agnostic before atheist is because there is such a thing as a gnostic atheist. I am a gnostic atheist to the God of the Bible because such a character would be impossible, and the entity has many contradictory traits. To other Gods not conjured yet, I am agnostic.
My blog: The Usual Rhetoric
