Are atheists being more illogical than agnostics?

Your opinion is valid, thanks for your input and update.

Is your opinion more logical?

Is it that actually we ultimately don't know anything...

"I DO NOT KNOW" is a better answer to the question, "Are there any gods" than all the other answers that are given by people describing themselves as atheists or theists."

Frank Apisa wrote:

"I DO NOT KNOW" is a better answer to the question, "Are there any gods" than all the other answers that are given by people describing themselves as atheists or theists."

Why is the atheist answer that they are: a person who lacks belief in the existence of God or gods, inferior to your opinion, in your opinion? The meaning of 'an absence of something' is very subtle and nuanced and is not asserting anything, is it?

The word "atheist" SHOULD NOT MEAN without a "belief" in any gods, but relatively modern atheists have managed to force that definition on the world. Prior to, let's say, the 1950's...that was not the case. Prior to that time the word meant "someone who denies the existence of any gods."

Frank Apisa wrote:

The word "atheist" SHOULD NOT MEAN without a "belief" in any gods, but relatively modern atheists have managed to force that definition on the world. Prior to, let's say, the 1950's...that was not the case. Prior to that time the word meant "someone who denies the existence of any gods."

You continue to make a strong case for your personal opinion which could be called agnosticism.

Doesn't language and therefore the meaning of words change over time? I believe linguists would say that language is always changing and the meanings of modern words can become the excepted meaning and the old meaning left to history or even both meanings present at the same time, perhaps during a transition period, and therefore some modern atheists have now redefined the term to mean 'without a belief in a god or gods. If this is the case then it is more subtle and nuanced and neither affirms nor denies the existence of a god or gods but just ignores the question due to its irrelevance. I do agree that there are also hardline atheists as you've pointed out, and what you've said applies to that group of atheists.


Don't you feel that one way to go is just to ignore the whole question of whether there are gods or not and focus on other topics? Doesn't that make logical sense? Is agnosticism sitting on the fence (if indeed it is, you would be a better judge of that than me) when there is no need to?

Way before the 1950s, around the late 16th century, "atheist" was used as a pejorative meaning "godless." The very etymology of the word means "without god," what with the word predicated on the Greek word "atheos," a-without, theos-god.

Thanks for reiterating your agnostic position.

Why do you care about what words Frank uses to call his theological outlook?

That's a different definition from what you allege, though, "someone who denies the existence of any gods."

I'm talking about your specious definition of the word "atheist," alleging it's meaning, prior to the 50s, to be "someone who denies the existence of any deities." Since the 16th century, it's definition was associated with the term atheism and the various definitions associated with that term, with rationales for not believing in deities being the main definition, one that has always been associated with the Greek word atheos, from Classical times, from which the English "atheist" derives.

I have, on dozens of occasions, called attention to the fact that the etymology of the English word "atheist" derives from the Greek through the French...and originally was used to describe someone who was "without a god."

ONE CANNOT BE WITHOUT A GOD IF THERE IS A GOD.

So, in effect, it was an indication of someone who denied the existence of any deities.

I was not "defining" the word...I was merely pointing out its etymology.

I then pointed out that some modern day atheists have managed to usurp the word to mean ANYONE who lacks a "belief" in any gods. Most amateur atheists will actually say, "A theist is someone who 'believes' in a god...so prefixing "theist" with a "a" (meaning without or sans) makes the word mean without a "belief" in a god.

That is bullshit. The word "atheist" came into the English language almost 100 years BEFORE the word "theist"...so it could not have derived that way.

And up until the mid 1950's almost all English speakers used the word to denote someone who denied the existence of gods.

BOTTOM LINE...an atheist is someone who designates him/herself to be an atheist. It is a self-applied descriptor...which obviously means all sorts of things to various atheists, because there are a dozen qualifiers used by various self-proclaimed atheists. We see STRONG atheists; WEAK atheists; NEGATIVE atheists; POSITIVE atheists; IMPLICIT atheists; EXPLICIT atheists; agnostic atheists; and the songs play on.

All the babies of the world...all the toddlers of the world...all the unfortunates who are intellectually incapable of forming a "belief"...

...none of them should, by dint of this absurd definition, be considered atheists.

But...the definition in many (NOT ALL) dictionaries and encyclopedia does seem to demand that.

I say, screw that!

So I present my take on the issue...and let any asshole who wants to insist I am an atheist spew his/her nonsense...and fight back.

If that bothers you...

...TOUGH.

What the hell is specious about any of that?