atheists deny the validity of a priori knowledge.

theists don’t.

Interesting…

Which statement(s) about agnosticism were you trying to refute?

Everyone is either an atheist or a theist.

That’s a false dichotomy. It’s certainly possible for a person to be unsure whether there is a god or not, and such a person would by definition qualify neither as a theist nor an atheist, since the former definitely believes that there are one or more gods, and the latter definitely believes that there are none.

There is no need to capitalize the word “atheist”, as it is not a movement, a belief system, or a religion

Atheism most certainly is a philosophy and thus a belief system. The hypothesis that there is no god is a universal negative, and thus cannot be proven. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. For a person to have absolute belief that there is no god requires every bit as much faith as the belief that there are one or more gods.

Given that there are a non-trivial number of atheists attempting to convert non-atheists, it is not clear to me under what sensible definition of movement there can be said NOT to be an atheist movement.

We’re all born atheists (lacking belief)

I’ll concede that to be true in the literal sense, but it of little consequence since as far as we know a newborn does not spend any time considering the issue of whether there is a god. In that sense, a newborn also does not believe that the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is pi, but there is no point to saying that the newborn doesn’t believe in mathematics.

As an agnostic I accept that the Atheists may very well be correct. A;though, it’s just as likely that the Hindu’s are correct.

It’s possible that 5 minutes after you die you wake up on the salt mines of Theta 3 to someone asking “how was your vacation?”

I accept the possibiity of god and the possibility of no god. This is not fence sitting.

The main dividing line for me is whether or not the person believes that Truth/Knowledge can be given to humans through supernatural revalations from God. i.e. Dogma.

If you believe it can, I’d say you’re not atheist.

I used to consider myself agnostic, but more recently I just call myself atheist, because although I still think there might be a creator, I *definitely* do not believe in any of the gods that religions are trying to foist off on us.

People have tried to convince me that I should believe on the basis of Pascal’s Wager, but I don’t see how that could possibly be of any use. If there is a omniscient god that expects us to believe with faith and no proof, and I go through the motions not because I believe but because I’m trying to hedge my bets, that god will obviously know that I didn’t have faith, and won’t grant me the rewards reserved for the faithful. Even if I did try to pretend to believe in god, what if I pretended to believe in the wrong god?

If there is a god that requires that we believe based on faith rather than proof, I don’t in the least bit regret failing to believe in such a sadistic god.

I know a lot of people are going to pick apart everything in this song “bah x wasn’t an atheist! I’m writing a harsh letter to the editor!”

And Zen Buddhists second the advice from the agnostics and add “Why don’t you sit down facing this wall that the door is in, and pay attention to what’s right here, right now?”

John Lennon’s “God”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv3ic6OOXns

Even if he wasn’t an Atheist, I think the lyrics to this song present the principles of Atheism extremely clearly.

And then, the bit at the end, “I just believe in me”, well, that’s the starting point for Humanism, right there.

Still, it’s not as funny as that Atheism Song, although the Adam Sandler impression actually hurts it.

For me atheism is just an odds game. I’m 99% that like grass, ants and bacteria, humans just cease to exist in any cerebral form after death. Of course I’m leaving the option open that we are an alien experiment or that Vishnu is all-powerful – but at 1% I’m not really betting on it.

Besides, in lieu of “evidence”, I tend to use the knowledge gained over the last few hundred years to support a modern world view over one, like your example Hinduism, that was created without the benefit of scientific exploration.

Maybe the Garden of Eden is just another possible scenerio but although I can never ‘know’ I’m going to go with evolution for the time being.

To say I accept the possibility of Eden AND the possibility of evolution IS fence sitting – not that it is wrong – just that it seems extreme backwards bending is going on to prevent an opinion.

Commenting on the comments: I find fundamentalist atheism very tiresome. Adding circular reasoning, dogmatic intransigence and historical revisionism to a weak philosophy doesn’t improve it.

–Charlie

Pretty much sums up what Ben Franklin believed, in his own words.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Everyone is either an atheist or a theist. We’re all born atheists (lacking belief), and some of us become theists. There is no need to capitalize the word “atheist”, as it is not a movement, a belief system, or a religion. Saying that atheism is a belief is like saying that baldness is a hair color.

Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?
– Douglas Adams, from Last Chance To See

Leave these people in the room long enough and you will hear more and more detailed accounts of what is probably behind the door.

Some people think there is an amusement park behind the door. Atheists think there is nothing at all behind the door. Both of these opinions are total guesses no evidence whatsoever to support them.

Agnostics say “You will find out what is on the other side of the door when you pass through it”. Trying to guess without evidence is futile.

You must be new to BB if you haven’t met the fundamentalist atheists. They will not rest until everyone believes what they believe, until everyone acknowledges that they are the repositories of the One Truth.