Great analogy, poor application. If you're an atheist, you find him innocent of existing, and guilty of not existing. An agnostic finds him not guilty of existing and not guilty of not existing.
And here's where we disagree, because I am an agnostic atheist who finds him not guilty of existing. I use that label deliberately and precisely. Our disagreemt essentially boils down to a difference in definitions. I can and will defend mine, and I share them with a significant portion of atheists.
My point right here though was to show you that there is a difference between not believing in a god, and believing that no god exists. You asserted they were the same position. But it's the same difference between innocent and not guilty.
I get it fine. You're not understanding my response. But saying it for the 20th time isn't going to help becuase you don't want to get it. This response is typical from self-proclaimed atheists. It's hard to hear you've been describing yourself in a way that makes no sense.
Mirror!!! 😀 There's no point in us going on about this. Neither is going to convince the other. But, I admit there's some faith in that conclusion because it's possible you'll eventually come around. So I'm an atheist as to you seeing the agnostic light.
No. Gnosticism addresses
knowledge. Atheism/theism is about belief. Im an agnostic atheist. I don’t believe a god exists, and dont claim to have knowledge of one existing. Most atheists fall into this category
"don't believe a god exists" is a subset of "we don't have knowledge of one existing." So your definition of atheism is subsumed by agnosticism. You either "believe no god exists" or you're really saying your agnostic.
It’s very simple. It’s a true dichotomy. Either you believe a good exists, or you don’t. If someone asks if you believe a god exists, and your answer is anything but yes, then you’re an atheist.
No they aren’t. If I have a jar of gumballs, there are either an even or odd amount. You not believing that there are an odd amount, doesnt mean you believe there’s an even amount. You can simply not know.
Yes, you can show me a chart that gets the definition of atheism wrong in the same way you do. It's funny because it conflates atheism with agnosticism. If you don’t “claim to know that no god exists” (agnosticism) you by definition “do not believe any god exists.”
So if “not believing any god exists” is atheism (rather than “believing no god exists”), then atheism is just a type or maybe subset of agnosticism. So, I guess if you want to strip the word “atheism” of any meaning, you can be right.
You have it backwards. Atheism is a lack of belief in any gods. Agnosticism says you don't know or cannot know if any gods exist.
Agnostics function as atheists in society. They do not pray, worship, attend temples or churches, &c. "I can't know if a god exists but I believe one does" is weird.
Comments
"I don't believe X" is not the same statement as "I believe not X".
"Not guilty" =/= "Innocent".
I, as an atheist, find God not guilty of existing. I may even have a positive belief in his innocence.
But to be an atheist, I only have to find God not guilty. I have no belief that he his guilty of existing.
knowledge. Atheism/theism is about belief. Im an agnostic atheist. I don’t believe a god exists, and dont claim to have knowledge of one existing. Most atheists fall into this category
It’s very simple. It’s a true dichotomy. Either you believe a good exists, or you don’t. If someone asks if you believe a god exists, and your answer is anything but yes, then you’re an atheist.
Agnostics function as atheists in society. They do not pray, worship, attend temples or churches, &c. "I can't know if a god exists but I believe one does" is weird.