All atheists and theists are agnostics?

It seems to me that people who demand or desire to be called atheists...are professing a guess that there are no gods.

There are those who flatly assert there are no gods...which obviously involves guessing.

There are those who claim they are "atheists" by virtue of the dictionary definition of the word...one of which is "someone without a belief in a god."

That really means that they are "atheists" only because some dictionaries tell us that some people use the word "atheist" that way.

I do not believe there are gods...which is not the same as "I believe there are no gods." There are people who "believe" there are no gods...but I am not one of them. There also are people who "believe" there is a GOD...but I also am not one of them.

Anyone who truly fits into that mindset...but who insists on being called "atheist"...almost certainly "believes" there are no gods, but simply will not acknowledge that because of the baggage it carries.

Any reasonable, long-term discussion with one of these "weak atheists" should convince any reasonable person that the "weak atheists" is as convinced of "there are no gods" as a strong atheist.

But the strong atheist has the ethical integrity to acknowledge the conviction.

Yea that is basically the case. I've giving people way too much credit. Like, I should stop doing that. I think people know stuff they don't. That's why. I think they're capable of doing things that they probably are not.

Ultimately I have to acknowledge that it's probably a loon. But it's not white though.

So...I don't know.

I can see how you reject the world by your profile...Mr. "basically" a best selling author. also the siting duck thing still applies as does the loon.

No, Bubba . . . you are the loon . . .

Setanta:

ok but, actually I'm not. No one is. And, where I come from, it's really abhorrent to criticize someone in this fashion, especially when undeserved by greater reason.

Where I come from it is greatly evil to say or do these things, ever and preposterous too. And, I think the matter is settled. And it doesn't apply so, obviously it's just what you want. It is really abhorrent to behave in a frictious manner, to cause friction, or to be on the outset, causing arguments; to annoy, but recently I find, especially online the desire to be annoying is there, in a bad way though, because there is funny annoying, and no one is doing funny annoying, but who knows.

Regardless, you should learn some manners.

The reason for the quarreling is power, and impressions of it. Everyone wants to fight the big guy (Nietzsche); well you're apparently the majority poster and the reasoning expert here so they all want to dash with you-I think anyway.

GermLat:

Well best selling really meant "where I come from"--- the new retort.

Apisa, Frank:

" Anyone who truly fits into that mindset...but who insists on being called "atheist"...almost certainly "believes" there are no gods, but simply will not acknowledge that because of the baggage it carries." Are atheists afraid?

Theist can't be agnostic, they believe in God. God is all knowledge. They have a piece of knowledge in them, self. So they have reason.

Probably, but no more than people who are not atheists.

My guess is that all people have fears of things. I certainly have...and most people I know have voiced that they have.

I suspect that Internet atheists (where most of the so-called weak atheists seem to reside) simply do not want to get into the position theists get themselves into with their assertions that there IS a god. They do not want to get into the position of having to defend an assertion that there are no gods. (Smart move on their part, in my opinion.)

The weak-atheist position has many similarities with what is known as the agnostic position.

But the insistence of weak-atheists to identify themselves as atheists (they almost never use weak-atheist except when defending the position)...indicates to me a disposition to severely discount the notion that gods can exist.

No, it is not undeserved. You say loony things, and say them without reason. So i say you're a loon.

well, only if you haven't been schooled. Again the matter is put to rest, what I write is high authority. Perhaps you didn't read my earlier retort to similar things, but, the matter is settled. What I write is high authority. Well you have to sometimes know classic latin, or medieval scholarship, or ancient Greek theology, not just wisdom to read what I write as high authority, what it is. If you don't think it is high authority, perhaps you only have a high school education, or actually I don't know where you went to school nor what it was like.

Beyond that, where I come from, it's very successful material. I expect it to be entertainment, not lunacy and it is not lunacy, it is not without reason, it is rather high authority in fact, and the matter is settled.

I expect what I write to be entertainment because of where I come from.

Ultimately however it is high authority. It really is. Then there is my originality which is linguistic theory in fact and that is also the thing, I expect to have original masterpieces at my age; original masterpieces is what I worked on and still do, because that was my expectation in life, because or maybe not because of where I come from, which is one great difference between us. But I have settled this matter already-I've already proven it in another thread. You already mean to say that, it had nothing to do with the post. It's so obvious too, because it doesn't really apply.

perhaps someone should challenge this definition of atheists so as to exclude weak or non-real atheists.

This is absolutely false. I know of no reason to consider you an authority on anything. What you write is witless, meandering drivel. You have settled nothing, other than that you are largely incoherent, and have no basis for your silly remarks. The word lunacy has no relation to the bird called a loon.

no I fear you just did not go to school. Which one? Which one was incoherent or meaningless? I'll give you tutoring too until you understand what I write.

No one pay me.

Ah-hahahahahahahaha . . . you creack me up.

What the f*ck was that idiot question supposed to be? What school didn't i got to? All of them, according to you.

well you aren't arguing successfully either which means you have to be responding to a certain post.

You keep editing that post. Which of your posts are incoherent? All of them.

No actually they are not. You have a 15 minute window to edit posts. Yes I do edit my posts. You have a 15 minute window. Do you think I can go back and cover up a post? Which one should we argue?

well I think you're a just a moron, and don't turn it into an interrogation either, that's usually what I find they do to make up for the callousness in general.

I don't give a sh*t what you think of me. I entertain about as low an opinion of you as is possible and still reply to you. However, it's obvious that your command of English is negligible, resulting in your incoherence, and that basically, you're just an attention whore. I'm going to stop feeding you. See ya 'round, clown.

Do it if you want to, Kiuku.

If someone wants to be known as an atheist...and still attends church every day...

...it is just fine with me.

You have to post what you are talking about if you want to be taken seriously. You're a moron. Incoherent is too high of a vocabulary word apparently. Look the word incoherent is used only for things that lack total sense, not simply misunderstandings-incoherent must be babble, it must be senseless, not just misunderstanding the context, background or reason. Incoherent is when the sentence structure is not valid itself, does not validate. Are you saying "incoherent" for everything you on your own don't understand? That might be why. You've used that word too many times so you obviously mean that word itself, along with lunacy; now I'm starting to see why that might be: police officer moron. Guys you're just morons, sorry.