Nice. I stand by my statement that most people don't think you're uncivil, but you're certainly bordering on rudeness here.


Ironically, you've just stolen my point. If everyone but you knows exactly what they mean when they say "atheist," who is correct? You're giving a huge range to "agnostic" and no space to the real people who truly don't believe in a god, but realize that that isn't a factually supportable position. Imo, you're determined to stick to a pinpointed definition of atheist, at the detriment of an easily applicable definition of agnostic. I think the truth is that we're talking about Agnostic Atheists, rather than an Atheist Agnostics (former term exists and works, latter not so much).

I'm not sure I'm going to read all of this - I said what I meant the first time.



Why talk about anything? Because it's a conversation. Did you not even read what I said? I believe, and I know what I think, but I cannot claim that God is a provable fact, unless I want to lie. Our feelings on the matter are not Facts. I am still able to call myself a Christian, am I not?

Completely regardless of my explanation, when real people talk to each other, they will often make statements to concede that there are other viewpoints. Not that they espouse them or even think they make sense.


You know. For yourself. Can you prove it? (that's rhetorical, in case you're not sure.)


Yes, they most certainly can. However, I'm not talking about reasonable doubt. I'm talking about lack of proof. There is a difference. You can feel as sure as you like, but you still have no proof. You have been given your Faith, but atheists have not; as such, you cannot treat the two "beliefs" as similar. The structure is completely different.

Maybe it's because I have a scientific background, but I find myself fully capable of being able to believe what I do and to admit that I cannot ever know for sure. I can feel confident in my belief, but I know I cannot prove God's existence to anyone else. Why would I refuse to admit that?


Are you saying that atheists make your life more difficult? Because they exist and you have to talk to them? Why do you care what they think?

If so, I guess I can see why this is such a big deal for you. I do not have that problem. I don't care what anyone else thinks, but I do feel I have a duty to accept that they are allowed to think it. And I most certainly do feel that I am being false if I refuse to admit that I cannot prove this to anyone else. The entire concept feels like I'd be trying to force it to be a Truth, rather than simply having the faith to believe it (and realizing that not everyone has that).


Again, not talking about reasonable doubt. I suspect you're injecting your own personal religious path into this conversation.




Sounds like Agnostic Atheist to me, not Agnostic. Why allow the term "atheist" to exist at all, if no one fits? But it does exist, and, imo, we have to allow people to fall under that description w/o trying to pretend that there are people who have Faith that God doesn't exist. That concept is so absolutely backwards, and I reject it utterly. That type of belief is a gift, not a universal concept.



But it's ok to instead make "agnosticism" needlessly broad and confusing? If it means everything, it doesn't mean anything.



Three things. 1) we once thought it meant "wickedness," so I'm not so sure this particular written definition is any more helpful to your case. 2) "disbelief" is not equal to "belief that something doesn't exist!" 3) "doctrine" is a completely confusing addition. There isn't a specific set of laws that defines this, especially not one coming down from on high. It seems that the main argument we have is that you keep trying to force Atheism into the same type of box as Christianity, and it just doesn't fit. Christian faith is a Gift that is given. Atheism is not, so the same certainty simply cannot exist unless one decides to refuse any other viewpoints.


I have never said no definition exists. I have said that allowing it to fit no one is pointless. That is not the way it is being used in modern terms, just as "wickedness" is no longer a main component of the def.


All I'm saying is that you might want to try listening to some of them when they talk to you, rather than to pretend that everyone fits perfectly into what you've described above.


What it has meant for centuries? You mean like "ungodliness and wickedness?" Btw, didn't several of those centuries include "atheist" being used against early Christians? And when exactly was the term "agnostic" created, again? Definitions never change, eh?