"Belief" does not equate to "knowledge". For instance, I do not know that there is no god. It would be impossible for me to prove that anything does not exist SOMEWHERE in the universe. However, I do not believe there is a god. I actively don't buy it. This belief is my opinion on the matter of something that is unknowable. Even though it is unknowable, I can still state with some degree of confidence that "belief in something for which there is no proof is ridiculous." This isn't based of faith. This is based on the fact that no one has ever seen god, heard god, or proven that miraculous or supernatural events are even possible.

Nothing annoys me more than the high-horse riding "Agnostic" champions that think so highly of their pathetic inability to draw a fucking conclusion on the matter.

does not believe in a god =/= believe there is no god

"you're really hung up on your interpretations of those two words. but you need to realize its not me you're arguing with - it's the majority of people who have a slightly different interpretation than you."

um, the majority of atheists I know do not claim to believe there is no god.... again, they simply abstain from belief all together.....

"i don't care enough about the issue to continue arguing semantics with you regarding agnostic and atheist."

good, because you are fundamentally incorrect.

"most people think an atheist believes there is no god, while an agnostic just doesn't know, or doesn't subscribe to a particular one."

then "most people" are wrong.

"I was merely playing devil's advocate in pointing out that someones faith - be it in God, No God, or Mickey Mouse, is their faith...one can't discredit another's faith simply because it's different... "

well that's obvious. again, I never said it doesn't take faith to believe something doesn't exist. In the most literal sense, I feel that to believe something, ANYthing, without knowledge, requires some faith. In some instances, obviously, that faith is indeed based on SOME knowledge, just not complete knowledge.

::posts in elite selfing::


"A" or "An" is a greek prefix for without. You can find it used in words like achromatic (without color), apathy (without feeling), amoral (without morals), or anaerobic (without oxygen).

It its most simple and literal sense, an atheist is without ("a" greek prefix for without) god(s) (theist greek root word for god(s)). Extending that to its logical endpoint, an atheist believes in an existence without a god, regardless of whether that belief in god is monotheistic, polytheistic, pantheistic, dystheistic, maltheistic or autotheistic.

However, the belief of an existence without a god does not necessarily exclude the belief in an afterlife, while often coupled together they are not necessarily exclusive. For instance, reincarnation may be an afterlife belief that is not dependent on a belief in a god or gods and may be more related to animism.

Gnostic, similarly is a greek word, and one that describes knowledge or understanding. Therefore, to be agnostic, one is without knowledge or understanding. In terms of theism, an agnostic would accept the reality that they do not have the knowledge or understanding to believe or not believe in a god. Unlike a theistic based belief a gnostic based belief is predicated on knowledge and therefore an agnostic must must have consistent beliefs on both god and the afterlife.

The word atheism in this country has been bastardized by conservative religious voices in this country to be inclusive of all those that do not have traditional theistic beliefs. It is easier to group agnostics, atheists, pahtheists, dysteists, autotheists ect into one group than to try to understand the nuanced differences, because working to understand how and why they differ lends them credibility and the last thing that traditional theists want is to lend credibility to an alternative view of god or a lack thereof.

Stating that atheism extends beyond the realm of a belief of a world without god(s), is to accept the box and ignore the nuance.