Agnosticism vs. Atheism

No, an atheist would not say that there was not a coin in your hand. We know that coins exist and that they can be held in the hand. SO the statement that you have a coin in your hand is too plausible to be dismissed just because I do not know whether there is or not.Now we don't know that any Gods exist, and in fact we can be pretty sure that many Gods that people beleive or used to believe in don't exist (even if we can't be sure which ones). And come to that Gods are pretty unlikely sorts of beings - highly ordered as well as radically different from anything that has been shown to exist.So the lack of evidence as well as the admittedly weak negative evidence is sufficient to at least justify taking the view that Gods don't exist even if we can't say that it is more than a tentative opinion.Speaking personally I am an atheist in that I hold the opinion that there are no Gods (unless or until evidence arrives to make me reassess that view) and an agnostic in the sense that I do not claim to know that there are no Gods (and that is at least closer to the original sense of the word than the way it is often used).I don't propose to get into the difference between agnosticism and atheism beyond that other to say that there are different definitions of agnosticism and atheism and some include agnosticism as a subset of atheism while others don't. The definition I use above can include atheists and theists rather than being a distinct position somehow inbetween.

In my earlier post I pointed out that there were good reasons to think Gods unlikely to exist.I would add that in general without ANY evidence - not even the circumstantial evidence that would apply in the example of the coin, nonexistence is the better assumption. There are many, many things that might exist - more things might exist than DO exist. So for existence claims nonexistence is to be preferred in the absencce of evidence that renders existence at least a plausible possibility (as in the case of the coin - knowing that coins are common objects that can be easily held in the hand raise the possibility that a coin is being held at least to the level of plausibility).

Sorry, but to the best of my knowledge no reputable source uses your definition - it appears to be a private definition used by a very few people, almost none of them atheists. On the other hand I do have a source which includes agnosticism under atheism (The Penguin Dictionary of Religions). Other reputable sources recognise that atheism can reasonably be defined to include all positions that do not include a positive belief in the existencce of a God or Gods.As I have stated I beleive that there is no God - and even though it is a tentative opinion, subject to revision that is sufficient to class me as an atheist under any mainstream xdefinition of atheism

The problem is that you are using what amounts to a private definition and quarreling with a lot of people - because they call themselves atheists without using (or possibly even knowing of) your definition.Why not at least use one of the more common definitions rather than causing communication problems by using a definition that appears to be concocted only for the purpose of misrepresenting others ? (While I do not know if that WAS the purpose that is certainly how I see it used !)

So was it absolutely clear in your first post to this thread - which wold be post 19 ?No it was not. There was no suggestion that you were using a private definition, nothing to say that there were people who quite reasonably consider themselves atheists who your assertions did not apply to.So there you have an example of the problem in action. And you could quite easily avoid the problem by using a more mainstream definition.

In post 19 you claimed that you were using the standard definitions and that atheism was only "belief".In post 21 you claimed that you were using your non-standard definition where atheism is "absolute certainty".Post 19:

quote:

---

Of course, it depends how you define terms, but I'm using the standard; theist believes in God; atheist believes there is no God; agnsostic refuses to confirm or deny God without evidence. This means that agnosticism isn't watered down, it is logically correct. An atheist advocates as much as a theist.

---

Post 21:

quote:

---

I agree, but atheists by definition deny the existence of God, this is 100% denial, there is no tentativity involved

---

I don't see how you can claim that you clearly stated your position in post 19 since post 21 contradicts it. The definition in post 19 clearly DOES allow tentative belief (and IS *a* - not *the* - standard definition).