I would have to disagree. Insofar as atheists go, it is accepted that the term is a pronounced disbelief of a superior being, whereas agnostics simply admit that such is beyond their capacity. It does not flat out deny the existence of said supreme force.

Far simpler:

Agnostic- I don't care what's in the box. There is no way for me to know.

Atheist- There is nothing in the box. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

It's odd that you chose to quote the definition of one word, while just dissecting the roots of another.



Key difference between what I'm saying and what you're saying is that you say that by saying our experience limits our perception, we are in a way denying existence of supreme being(s). What I feel the proper interpretation is, is that if you experience and believe it and I do not, I still don't deny your experience and try to drown it in science and/or conflicting points of view.

Or, perhaps even simpler, agnostics don't believe there is a god while atheists believe there is no god.

I suppose people that have been 'touched' or witnessed a miracle (delusions?) or whatever else are quite rare. I understand these cases. Most believers have just been indoctrinated during their raising though, and that sucks.

Nowadays society is more knowledgeable and educated, we don't really need to hold on to absurd superstitions and unverifiable 'revelations'. I'm surprised religions still have such a grip on people. Like islam being on the rise, it is right? Weird. Maybe civilization progresses too fast for some.


I think it's far-fetched. A lot. Any solid statistics on that?
Too many hacker movies about the nineties man.

Nihilist - It doesn't matter what's in the box.

Existentialist - That's not a box, it's my hat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeitoun_apparitions

This is verified. But people still ignore it / brush it off because they want to.

There is another verified and recorded event in I believe Fatima.

And who says that people can't have experiences nowadays?

There is no one definition of 'atheist', 'religion' 'god', etc., of course. Dictionary.com and many other sources will go by the interpretation of modern politics. The difference between what you and I are saying stems from our difference in definitions. Connotations of the word aside, the literal (which I interpret as correct) definition of 'atheism' is simple- "without belief in god." This is the Latin root.

It may seem trivial, but if we apply your reasoning directly then many people referring to themselves as atheists (in the plain, literal sense) will immediately become subject to the assumption that they "deny your experience and try to drown it in science and/or conflicting points of view." With an especial regard for the word "drowning" that seems to carry a very derogatory connotation, and for the purpose of clear communication rather than flinging mud I think it more practical to then divide the concept into passive and aggressive atheism, or whatever else, and fit the ideological details into those.

"'atheism' is simple- "without belief in god." This is the Latin root."

this isn't so simple actually.

firstly, when latin was widely used, the language was polytheistic, so what "god" means is in question. (Are we talking about "the first cuase", are we talking about a "designer", are we talking about the biblical god, are we talking about various polythesitic gods, or are we talking about a sentient universe?)

secondly, "belief in" can mean many different things. 1. believe that it exists, 2. believe that it is knowable, 3. believe that it's existance can be experienced / interacted with. It all often depends on the context religion and culture of the person using that word.

Agreed, but if you had none of those things, and believed neither subject of those definitions- would you not agree that you were an atheist? This was the point of my reply. In outright "denial" of "God(s)" or complete ignorance, the literal definition applies. Whatever the definitions it applies to might entail.

But many (most?) agnostics don't deny or believe in many of those things. many (most?) agnostics believe in an unkowable first cause which just happens to exist, but since they can't know more than that, they call themselves agnostic in relation to divine command, which they believe is unknowable.

There are two formal flavors of agnosticism:

Weak agnosticism is "I don't know and will say so."

Strong agnosticism is "You can't know. Ever. You can't even begin to comprehend."

Both strong and weak agnosticism are incompatible with any form of divine revelation. Strong agnosticism is not incompatible with atheism, although you rarely see any commingling between the two. It is probably safe to say that most weak agnostics believe that there is probably a first cause of some sort, but it's not a big deal. Weak agnostics might even be partial to certain religions. A strong agnostic does not hold any such beliefs. I cannot readily find any statistics on proportions between the two, and I'm too busy cooking to give it a thorough search.

Back to the kitchen for me!

Silly antisocial comments aside, what's your basis for believing that non-atheists are spiritualist but materialistic while atheists are materialists but not materialistic, Daganev? The materialist thing is quite believable, since atheists generally have more faith in neuroscience than anything about a soul, but how do you get the materialistic thing to look like that?

I'm correlating not being materialistic with being on the internet, not atheism. ("things should be free and used by the public for things they need to do", as apposed to "what I am able to buy defines me" )

I'm talking about internet based social trends which includes things such as being anti social, atheistic, and non materialistic.

Ok, that makes more sense, thanks for clarifying.

I'm just gonna say, all this discussion is very interesting, but I can't contribute to it. You guys know too much.