An agnostic is an atheist who is a coward.

Are you are now a non-believer in the religion you grew up with?   Are you

now agreeing in the science that completely invalidates the religious

propaganda still believed by many of your friends?  Do you need the facts

to back up your  new beliefs?  Do you want to know why Jesus was not the

son of God and why he will never return?  Do you want to know the parts

in the bible that are never told by ministers and priests?  Do you want to

know other facts that disprove completely other historical stories that you

always thought were true? For instance, do you realize that the founding

fathers of the United States of America did not believe in Christianity? 

Would you like to have the truth about whether the laws of the United

States have any connection to the Ten Commandments?  How about the

background of all religions having their basis in superstitions and myths?

Ask me.

Views: 504

Comment by M.M. on October 28, 2013 at 1:09pm

Due to the emotional immaturity of some members, sometimes this site is more like a school yard playground.



They only display how much more they have to learn.

Comment by Dan on October 28, 2013 at 4:02pm

Stephen,Please take time to familiarize yourself with our guidelines:

More specifically, number 5 of the bannable offenses;

Banable Offenses:
1. Plagiarism and Copyright Infringement
2. Threats of Violence or Harassment
3. Personal Attacks (name-calling or abusive remarks directed at a person or group of people)
4. Revelation of Other People's Personal Information
5. Proselytizing

6. Spam

The rule applies to both theists and non-theists alike.





Comment by Atheist Exile on October 29, 2013 at 12:52am

No matter which freethinker discussion group I visit, it seems there’s always a thread debating agnosticism versus atheism. There’s always divergent views about the meanings of these two words. To me, the apparent confusion stems from ambiguous word usage. It should be noted that dictionaries don’t define words for us: they merely reflect how we use words. Lexicographers write dictionary definitions according to the actual usage of words. So, if they are ambiguous in actual usage, dictionaries will reflect this ambiguity. But what is NOT ambiguous is the etymology of these two words. The root of the word, ‘agnosticism’, means ‘knowledge’. The root of the word, ‘atheism’, means ‘belief’ (in God). By adhering to what we know, unambiguously, about these two words (their etymologies), we can more easily and clearly distinguish them.

Etymologically, agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. One can be both. In fact, I’d dare say most atheists are ‘agnostic atheists’.

Atheism claims a lack of belief in God. That’s all. It’s about belief . Belief involves subjective claims and opinions.

Agnosticism claims a lack of knowledge of God. That’s all. It’s about knowledge. Knowledge involves objective facts and conclusions.

Atheism is a subjective (belief) claim. Agnosticism is an objective (knowledge) claim. I lack knowledge of God and I lack belief in God. I am atheist by subjective opinion. I am agnostic by objective conclusion.

I would happily believe in God if solid evidence for him ever surfaced but I think the odds of that ever happening are vanishingly remote. Until physical evidence of God’s existence or nonexistence surfaces, rational integrity dictates that I have no logical basis for certainty either way. So my agnosticism is absolute but my atheism isn’t: I am 100% certain I lack knowledge of God but my lack of belief is only 99.99% certain. Personally, I lack belief in God because all evidence points to natural – NOT supernatural – causes.

God, as a concept, is a meme that can’t be proved or disproved: there simply is no substantive information from which to draw an informed conclusion – much less, certainty.


Technically, we really should first clarify what we mean by the word ‘God’. In the West, we usually mean the personal, revealed, monotheistic, God of Abraham. The Abrahamic God is the god of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Alternatively, we might mean the impersonal, absentee, cosmic, god of deists or pantheists. The Abrahamic God is (allegedly) revealed through divinely inspired scripture: the Hebrew Bible; the Christian Bible; and the Quran. For their respective religions, these scripture are the inerrant, immutable, Word of God. The cosmic god of deists and pantheists, on the other hand, is amorphous. We don’t really know anything about him. He has no scripture to inform us of him.

If, for the sake of argument, we pretend that God is truly revealed by his scripture(s), then we can easily conclude that the God of scripture is absolutely false: contradictory and incoherent. This is virtually as good as proving he does not exist. But the amorphous god of deists and pantheists is another matter entirely. Without any information to go on, we can’t reach a conclusion about him: much less, an absolute one.

So, for me, when I think of agnosticism and atheism, I’m thinking of the amorphous god of deists and pantheists: NOT the revealed god of theists, who, on the authority of his own scripture, CAN’T be real . . . so, logically, I must discount him.

Comment by Gary Clouse on October 29, 2013 at 6:02am

Atheist Exile:

   Excellent assessment.

Comment by _Robert_ on October 29, 2013 at 7:14am

Atheist Exile:

   I agree with Gary, Excellent assessment,

Agnostics are often atheists as well. However some really great people who have expressed agnosticism also appear to be deists.


Christians have tried to claim President Lincoln as one of their own but the man himself said:

"The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma."

William Henry Herndon (December 25, 1818 – March 18, 1891) the law partner and biographer of Abraham Lincoln writes:

If he had been asked the plain question, "Do you know that a God exists?" he would have said: "I do not know that a God exists."

Yet Lincoln certainly understood that if he publically called upon a god, that the people would more easily rally around a righteous cause for the greater good.

Comment by SteveInCO on October 29, 2013 at 9:29am

Atheist exile:

Excellent points, all.  In most cases--I'll go so far as to say "almost all cases" -- this argument is taking place between people who aren't defining their terms the same way.  So they aren't even talking about the same things, and still flinging poo at each other over it.  Even though they might in fact actually agree!

You've used the etymological definitions here; that brings up the question of what is the criteria for deciding the correct meanings of words--should it go back to etymology or should it be based on current usage?  The former risks being meaningless to most people, the later runs into the problem of current meanings often being ambiguous, with multiple alternate definitions as different people take a word in different directions from its original meanings.  However, you've (correctly) dodged the bullet of this whole debate over semantics themselves by specifying which meaning you are using.  If someone wants to continue the argument at this point they have to try to convince you your definitions are wrong (which means they won't be arguing against your stated position after all) or maybe they actually will have something relevant to say.

I like the point you make at the end about the Abrahamic god being fundamentally self-contradictory, yet you conclude:

This is virtually as good as proving he does not exist.

I'll take exception to this.  It's not strong enough. I believe it proves he does not exist.  Period.  End of sentence.  The only out they'd have is to claim that the description in the scripture is not in fact accurate (which would flush scriptural infallibility right down the toilet).  But then we and they would (once again) not be talking about the same thing, right?  I find Zeus and Thor microscopically more probable than the zero I give to omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent Yahweh.

As for other conceivable gods, the pantheistic god is, I think, really a semantic difference; they usually don't ascribe conscious, volitional thought to it, thinking of it as all the laws of the universe bundled together or something like that.  Is this really any sort of god (using "god" in the generic sense)?  Really?  Even without any sign of volition on its part?  And if not why bother labeling it as such? 

The deistic god, I think, would be a god, but there's zero, zippo, zilch evidence for it.  I take a different stance than most people do today when someone raises a proposition like this, for which there is no evidence in favor, but also no absolute proof that it's wrong.  (Hey, maybe the core of Pluto is made out of Gorgonzola cheese.  Prove it wrong!)  I don't assign some vanishingly small probability to it; I call it an arbitrary assertion and disregard it.  It's not even wrong, "wrong" implies a statement that is subject to logical analysis.

As a side note, the enlightenment age deists, though they saw no evidence of present day intervention by the "Architect" or "Divine Providence" did ascribe a benevolent attitude toward him, believing that he wanted us to be happy and prosperous--he had made it possible to be so, after all--but that he was willing to sit back and watch us control our own destinies, that we would have to take those steps rather than wait for "daddy" to make it so.  I wouldn't be bent out of shape if that turned out to be true, but in fact it's not even wrong.


You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service