Replies are closed for this discussion.
I disagree with that definition. It's akin to me to stating I'm a vegetarian but I still eat meat. For me, agnosticism is a shade of theism, not a shade of atheism.
There is a logical fault among trendy atheists, in that our "leaders" are trying to be all inclusive in order to skew statistics as much in our favour as possible. I see trends in some interpretations to inflate our ranks, to include everyone and anyone who is not affiliated with a given church, anyone with doubt, anyone with sympathies, anyone who's religion does not include a single god. That's fine for political speak, but when it comes to real solid definitions, I prefer to distance myself from cheery all inclusives.
You are welcome to disagree, though not many others agree with you.
As an atheist, I do not believe in the existence of God. I am also in agnostic in that I do not think it is possible to know whether there is a God.
Would you agree that belief and knowledge are different?
Also, I don't find that the definition that was provided to you is an "all-inclusive" definition at all.
only 17 responses to the survey, need more. Only one question to answer, super fast :)
did you go to the link? surveyonly 22 votes, still a long way to go
A selfdescription for me would have to say : "Organic Altruistic Secular Humanist" . that pretty much nails it right on the head !