To believe or not to believe - that is the quesiton.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
An agnostic believes it is not possible to prove, in principal, whether God exists or not

[/ QUOTE ].

That’s how I understand the word agnostic.

[ QUOTE ]
Hence an agnostic can either positively believe in God,

[/ QUOTE ]

That's how I understand the word believer.

[ QUOTE ]
positively believe God doesn't exist

[/ QUOTE ]

That’s how I use the word atheist.

[ QUOTE ]
or have no belief either way.

[/ QUOTE ]

That’s how I understand the word agnostic.

[Trantor]

I think your definitions and conclusions in this post are _not_ as I understand them. Note: I will use your term "believer" for theist as that is how you use the term, I think. (You could say an atheist is a believer ( in atheism) but let's not get too bogged down here!)

An agnostic believes it is not posible to prove or disprove the existance of God, _in principle_. An agnostic can however believe in God(be a beliver) or believe there is no God (be an atheist). An agnostic can also believe in neither viwpoint (and so is also an atheist in some definitions).

A person may be an non-agnostic and believe it is possible to prove (or demonsrate with certainty, or some similar statement) that God does or does not exist.

Your example 1) then becomes:

1) When we are talking the possibility of a God. Divide looks like this -

Atheists(agnostics and non-agnostic) and believers (agnostics and non-agnostic)

Atheist (but only the non-agnostic ones) give it no possibility. Agnostics (including atheist agnostics) and believers(agnostic or non-agnostic) give it some or 100% possibility."

You see how the definitions I think are proper affects the statements you make, hence I conclude you are not, in fact, using these terms in the same way I am.

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
An agnostic believes it is not possible to prove, in principal, whether God exists or not

[/ QUOTE ].

That’s how I understand the word agnostic.

[ QUOTE ]
Hence an agnostic can either positively believe in God,

[/ QUOTE ]

That's how I understand the word believer.

[ QUOTE ]
positively believe God doesn't exist

[/ QUOTE ]

That’s how I use the word atheist.

[ QUOTE ]
or have no belief either way.

[/ QUOTE ]

That’s how I understand the word agnostic.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I have posted in another reply, on this basis the following statement you made makes no logical sense and hence my confusion over just how you are using the terms:

"
1) When we are talking the possibility of a God. Divide looks like this -

Atheists/ agnostics and believers

Atheist give it no possibility. Agnostics and believers give it some possibility.
"

Simply put (!) an athesist does _not_ necessarily "give it no possibility" as you said in the previous post I quote above. An agnostic atheist will give it some possibility (whilst believing it is not the case). You seem in this later quote to assume an atheist cannot be an agnostic.

I'm not sure it changes any conclusions but I wanted to reply to this rather fine but I consider important distinction.

[RJT]

I got you. I stand corrected again.

I made the same error (that you just corrected) that I think many do about believers. We (believers) have faith there is a God, most accept the possibility that there isn't but serves not purpose(to the beliver) to live ones life as if it really is a possibility.

---

Getting back to the definitions.

I think we (you and I) agree to each characterization. The trouble I was having before (not with your posts) was that some on the board seem not to distinguish atheists and agnostics (I assume now it is because there really are so few "atheists") - that is they seem to say atheists sometimes when they mean to say agnostics. From now on I will ask to the person what they mean when they call themselves atheists or agnostics - if it is relevant to the point of the particular discussion.

[RJT]

You are again correct. And this is my confusion. I simply think it would be easier if we use the term atheist to mean one who believes there is no God. Believer to mean one who believes there is. And an agonostic to mean one who takes no stance as neither is knowable.

Technically an agnostic can be any of the three, but what is the point of that as a word?

[Maddog121]

How about all the Christians come up with an agreement on what to believe? I doubt it would be managed without much bloodshed.

[bocablkr]

I have always defined an atheist as one who says there is no possibility of a god and an agnostic as one who is not sure.

You made the following statement - Can we agree on this: That to believe that “there is absolutely no possibility of a God” is as “silly” a thinking as how agnostics view what believers think (them silly) about their religion?

I do not agree. Silly or not, whether I can prove it or not, I don't care - “there is absolutely no possibility of a God”. This has been debated endless times here - that since it can't be 'proven' that there is not a god then you can't be certain there isn't one. Well, I for one am certain. Anyone else certain or am I the only one?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
An agnostic is one who does not 'know' whether or not god exists, and according to the strict defintion of 'atheist, all agnostics are without belief and thus atheists.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not correct. An agnostic believes it is not possible to prove, in principal, whether God exists or not. Hence an agnostic can either positively believe in God, positively believe God doesn't exist or have no belief either way.

[/ QUOTE ]

From Wiki, note the agnostic theist at the end who believes in god but may not be an agnostic [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Strong agnosticism (also called hard agnosticism, closed agnosticism, strict agnosticism)—the view that the question of the existence of deities is unknowable by nature or that human beings are ill-equipped to judge the evidence.

Weak agnosticism (also called soft agnosticism, open agnosticism, empirical agnosticism)—the view that the existence or nonexistence of God or gods is currently unknown but isn't necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgement until more evidence is available.

Apatheism—the view that the whole question of God's existence or nonexistence is beneath consideration or concern.

Apathetic agnosticism—the view that the whole question of God's existence or nonexistence cannot yet be properly answered, and therefore one should free oneself from a fruitless search.

Ignosticism—the view that the concept of God as a being is scientifically meaningless because it has no verifiable consequences, therefore it cannot be usefully discussed as having existence or nonexistence.

Model agnosticism—the view that philosophical and metaphysical questions are not ultimately verifiable but that a model of malleable assumption should be built upon rational thought. Note that this branch of agnosticism differs from others in that it does not focus upon the question of a deity's existence.

Agnostic theism-the view of those who do not claim to know God's existence, but still believe in his existence. Whether this truly is agnosticism is disputed.

chez

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
I have always defined an atheist as one who says there is no possibility of a god and an agnostic as one who is not sure.

You made the following statement - Can we agree on this: That to believe that “there is absolutely no possibility of a God” is as “silly” a thinking as how agnostics view what believers think (them silly) about their religion?

I do not agree. Silly or not, whether I can prove it or not, I don't care - “there is absolutely no possibility of a God”. This has been debated endless times here - that since it can't be 'proven' that there is not a god then you can't be certain there isn't one. Well, I for one am certain. Anyone else certain or am I the only one?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually Cab, I don’t believe any of the stances are silly. But, for those who throw taggers at religion, I suggested they throw ‘em at folk like you, too. That was my point.

[bocablkr]

Never been called Cab before. I try not to throw 'taggers' at religious people though I must admit I do not understand them.