Atheist vs Agnostic

Atheist do not consider themselves agnostic for the same reason pantheist do not consider themselves montheist. They are different. IMO There are 3 camps: 1. theist=those who think there is a God
a) monist
b) pantheist2. Atheist= those who do not think there is a god
3. Agnostic=those who are undecided.
Calling an atheist a agnostic presupposes the atheist to be undecided. Atheist are not undecided, they most assuredly do not believe that god or gods or deitys exist. Period.
**cute baby***This message has been edited by 1.61803, 03-01-2005 14:21 AM

agnostic "one who doubts the possibility of God.....etc..."
IMO is a bad definition. Agnostics do not doubt anything, they simply withold judgement on the grounds of incomplete data.Yes according to the definition in your original post anyone who doubts the possibility of God would sound like an atheist. But I am moving the goal post to include in my opinion a better definition of agnostic. One who witholds judgement pending further evidence.

No exception is made. Bigfoot is not god, fairies are not god. The Loch Ness monster is not god. You personally may lump God in with "fairy tales". But again that shows the difference between an atheist verses agnostic. Agnostics do not disbelieve god exist. They do not believe god exist. They are content to say they do not know. Atheist on the other hand take a stance on the issue and say: THERE IS NO GOD. Then again I could be wrong altogether.

Good point. I am not so sure Big foot does not exist. A homid type creature existing in the remote wilderness seems to be a possibiltiy. On the other hand, Loch Ness has been very much explored with sonar and no recent evidence suggest that Nessie exist. Not to mention the fact that the lake would not have enough food source to support a Dino of that size. "What makes God so special." Well acutally nothing. Except that a vast majority of humans believe that such a diety exist. Anyone can say God exist, and just as easily one could maintain that he does not. What irks atheist IMO is that since no scientific evidence has been found to support the existance of God why would anyone think God exist? And if one who claims to be agnostic decides to be neutral on the issue of the existance of God is liken to saying that God could be a possiblilty. Saying God could be a possiblility to someone whos says God can not be a possibilty is like calling someone a liar. It burns the skin. Hows them lemurs doing

Premise: God does not exist
Observation: There is no evidence that God exist
Conclusion: God does not exist
Objection: The lack of evidence does not mean something did not happen or is not possible or does not exist.Premise: Dark matter does not exist
Observation: there is no evidence that dark matter exist
Conclusion: Dark matter does not exist.
Objection: the existance of dark matter is still being investigated.Premise: Life on other planets does not exist
Observation: there is no evidence of life on other planets
Conclusion: Life on other planets does not exist.
Objection: Not every planet in the Universe has been explored.Premise: abiogenesis is impossible
Observation: the is no current mechanism to create life from non life.
Conclusion: abiogensis is impossible
Objection: abiogenesis occurred on Earth dispite humanities ignorance of how.Just my own opinion.

To say I do not know is much more honest than to posit a answer without really knowing. It is IMO arrogant to take a position of having full knowlege of the existance of something without first having the means to investigate or even understand what is being investigated. I agree with Crashfrog on the point of what good is a god that is undectectable and unable to be substantiated. But to the faithful and many "believers" God's presence is existance itself. 2000 years ago man knew the brain was a mechanism to cool the blood. How far would humanities knowlege base be expanded if we continued to assert what we thought we knew was fact?

**SNL***Church Ladie (" How convienant".)