It's impossible to know...
Atheist means without god. I have no good reason to believe that there is a god, therefore i am without god. I don't give a rat's ass about the question of whether or not there is a god, therefore i am without god…
You are confusing "logicality" with "rationality". Atheists reject the rationality of theists. Agnostics merely sit on the fence.
You're not going to get very far trying to dictate how one should apply the word 'atheist,' and follow your doctrinaire approach to your question. For a word as nebulous as 'atheist' the definition "without god" is as good as any other, and isn't loaded with doctrinal baggage.
I disagree and can't debate it with you unless you define what you believe atheism and agnosticism are.
Atheist means without god. I have no good reason to believe that there is a god, therefore i am without god.
No, one is not obliged to refute theism in order to be an atheist…
Being an atheist is not a belief system,…
(igm) …set out with the assumption that being an atheist is illogical.
questions i have asked you…Can you refute the existence of fairies, pixies and elves? Can you refute the possibility of cross-traffice failing to stop at a red light?
You've already decided that atheists are more "illogical" than atheists,…
igm wrote:I disagree and can't debate it with you unless you define what you believe atheism and agnosticism are.
I lead off with a definition of atheist, and you rejected it. That's because you can't debate the question, period.
Logic starts from axioms. It cannot test the validity of those axioms i.e it cannot test "existence" per se, it can only test inferences from such axioms. Thus "God created the Earth in seven days" can be tested, whereas "God exists" cannot.
Rationality, is about "making sense", in terms of social functionality For example, Evans-Pritchard cited the Azande belief in "witchcraft causing criminal acts" as an alternative rationality to Western ideas of culpability. So when an Azande miscreant was tried by a Western court, the verdict was not accepted by any of the parties unless the entrails of a ritually slaughtered chicken had been examined. This "rationality" was socially functional in Azande society, just like different religious beliefs are socially functional in other societies.
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.
The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god", which was applied with a negative connotation to those thought to reject the gods worshipped by the larger society. With the spread of freethought, skeptical inquiry, and subsequent increase in criticism of religion, application of the term narrowed in scope. The first individuals to identify themselves as "atheist" appeared in the 18th century.
There are two in-use definitions of the word 'atheist':
1.) A person who lacks belief in a god or gods. People who use this definition categorize atheists as either negative (or implicit or weak) atheists or positive (or explicit or strong) atheists. Negative atheists, while they don't believe in a god, do not positively assert that no gods exist. Positive atheists, however, do.
2.) A person who believes that no god or gods exist.
Those who consider themselves atheists (who are usually positive atheists) tend to define 'atheist' using the former definition, and those who believe in a god or gods tend to define 'atheist' using the latter. In both cases, this seems to be a demagogic practice intended to classify either as many or as few people as atheists as possible. Negative atheists are usually referred to as agnostics.
noun -- a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in vigorous application of a single principle. Positively the principle may be expressed as: in matters of intellect, follow your reason as far as it can carry you without other considerations. And negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend the conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable. It is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. That is what Agnosticism asserts; and, in my opinion, it is all that is essential to Agnosticism. ... The application of the principle results in the denial of, or the suspension of judgment concerning, a number of propositions respecting which our contemporary ecclesiastical "gnostics" profess entire certainty.
Are you agnostic about fairies, pixies and elves?