Nah. The agnostic doesn't care -- he just goes about his business. YOU are the one worried about attitudes and definitions.

im worried about definitions, sure, in this context, but generally dont care much about theology. sort of the definition. its just atheists are demonized, and i dont like it.

Meh, childs play. At least agnostics admit they don't have the answers.
Where as athiests believe they can argue against the complexities of life. You can't explain athiesm any more than any believer of any faith can.

Here is a simple math problem I'm sure even you can understand.
(Mind you I have studied, so if you further this debate, please bring top notch information and statics, or else you will set yourself up for failure just as you did in the abortion forum.)

0+0=0

Nothing+Nothing=Nothing

So tell me with all of your knowledge, how can you get infinite creation from nothing. Even the strongest athiest belief the big boom theory, still starts with something. Tell me, where did that something come from. Because as we all know... 0+0=0.

Okay, I don't think I failed in the abortion thread. This is philosophical discourse, so be prepared for whats coming. There will be no statistics, no "facts", this is only pure philosophy, and primarily philosophy of language. So, don't expect any statistics, though, I couldn't even think of what statistics in regards to theology would look like. Also, I'm not going to go post a bunch of links to other websites and call that proof, nor will I read any of your links unless they're particularly interesting. This is only going to happen if you talk with me.

Lets begin. Firstly, I'm not claiming anything. I didn't say there is no God. I also made no claim as to the origins of the universe. It is my opinion that it is strictly because of the way our language works that we can ask and attempt to answer questions like this. Animals, for example, can not. There may be a time in human history where it is advantageous to have a uniformed understanding of the origins of the universe, as it was in the past. And, like in the past, when people said God created the world, so too will that hypothetical understanding of the origins of the world still have a particular bias or context within which and only within which does that origin story become a truth statement.
"Where as athiests believe they can argue against the complexities of life."

How so? Explain what this means so I can respond, be much clearer.

"You can't explain athiesm any more than any believer of any faith can."

Of course, you didn't mean explain, you meant prove. Because clearly I, and religious people, can both explain our opinions as we have been doing for centuries. So, I can't prove atheism. Whats that mean? What would I have to prove to prove that I am an atheist? That I don't think within the context of any religions? Well, I guess its hard to prove, so you have to take my word for it, I am an atheist, and I am not a theist. Of course, you, like so many people who are posting in this thread, have failed to actually read the topics or my posts, because I gave a definition of atheism, one which requires no proof. This is THE definition of atheism as I see it, "one who does not think within a theistic context." Notice it isn't your preprogrammed assumed description "one who claims god does not exist." Please, read my definition again, and again, compare it to your definition. If you're unwilling to talk about atheism using my definition, then we're not talking about the same thing and the conversation will degrade quickly. Now, assuming my definition, I am going to outline exactly why it is that I don't need proof. Being an atheist is a personal endeavor. It doesn't involve some academic professed claim against god. It only requires that one does not think with the words or in the context of a theist. Let me give you an example. I punch a baby in the face. If I were a theist I might think "What would Jesus Do?" or I'd think "Was that a sin?" or maybe "Whats the Bible think? Or how does my soul feel?" Instead, because I am an atheist, I think thoughts like "oh shit, did anyone see me hit this baby in the face?" or "i hope no one calls the cops" or "why did I just hit a baby?"
Because atheism has the "ism" syntax people compare it to communism, or pragmatism, or any other ism, in which one is making a statement about the methodology of something. Racism is a belief that races are not equal. But atheism isn't a belief, its a personal practice, just like being a Christian. If you said someone was Christian, it doesn't mean they're claiming "there is no chi, or tao". It means they think in a Christian context. It isn't an expressed public claim, its a private thing.

Agnostics simply fail to see the redundancy of the "Can't know" argument.

Of COURSE you can't know. You can't know anything. We all accept that. You'd have to be a moron otherwise.

But it's pointless to say it that way. You can't make any definitive statement if you won't make one here. An agnostic is an atheist who doesn't really have a damn clue what he's talking about. Smart enough to reject religion, but not smart enough to think about what that entails.

You can't know whether the sun will rise tomorrow, but we're all pretty certain it will.

you're my new favorite poster on this site

There are different degrees of certainty for knowing. Of course you can't really know the sun will rise but you could set up a scientific experiment and show a repeating pattern proving the hypothesis that the sun will rise and even calculating the time it will rise in a given location. Someone else could perform the same experiment the same way and get the same results as you.

This type of knowing is very different from the kind of knowing people claim to have about religion. They claim to know things which can't be proved with even a minimal degree of certainty.

I'm just one agnostic so I can't speak for everyone but I don't have a problem debating with or disproving the obviously ridiculous claims of any religion specifically. For instance, I will gladly tell anyone that there was no snake walking around in some mythically perfect garden plotting to bring on the downfall of humanity with a piece of fruit. It's clearly a myth on the same level with the myth that the earth was created on the back of a giant turtle.

It's the broader questions that cannot be answered. Is there or isn't there a creative force or being/s behind our exist? Is there a soul or essence that continues beyond this life or do we just cease to exist? These things cannot be known at least not with our current level of knowledge and technology. All we can do is speculate and we should all be honest enough to admit that what we know on this subject is speculation and nothing more.

But, as stated, one does not need to be an agnostic to have your opinion, it is perfectly acceptable to think the way you do within the atheist community. I am an atheist, and I agree with you. Why not call yourself an atheist? Its preprogrammed that you think of atheism as definitive or as extreme because theists want it that way. I've been demonized many times by people who grew up in the church who just have no idea. A mexican bitch once asked me if I worshipped the devil. This is how completely warped other's perspectives on atheists really are. I was out to lunch the other day with two atheist buddies (all my closest friends are atheists) and this exact conversation came up. One of us said that the reason people say they're agnostic is because people will instantly shut off upon hearing you're an atheist. He was claiming that he doesnt really bring up his atheism to non-atheists for this same reason. Likewise, its rare that I introduce my atheism. Just the other day, it was purposed to me in class by someone that I was an atheist and I was forced to admit to it, but it made me feel incredibly uncomfortable in the classroom. After class people came up to me with some of the most randomly patronizing crap like "its okay, don't feel bad, my brother is an atheist, too". or "hey man, its cool that everyone has their own opinion, but, you realize you have to believe in God in order to disprove him". what the hell yo? Its because of pussy agnostics driving a rift into a debate that didn't need them. You make my perspective seem extremist and exaggerated when in reality it is IDENTICAL to your perspective.

Seriously I like your definition of atheism. I sincerely hope it catches on. It's certainly much better than the current commonly understood definition. However until it does catch on, you will be swimming upstream in trying to get people to understand you.

Dictionary.com currently defines atheism:
–noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Merriam Webster defines it:
noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity

On the other side they define agnosticism:

noun
Etymology: Greek agnōstos unknown, unknowable, from a- + gnōstos known, from gignōskein to know — more at know
Date: 1869
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2: a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>

and from Dictionary.com:
ag·nos·ti·cism–noun
1. the doctrine or belief of an agnostic.
2. an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge.

Good luck in broadening the definitions, until you succeed I will continue to refer to myself as an agnostic.

I'm not bothered by agnostics, at least they're quite polite, by and large. It's idiots from the Westboro Baptist Church that really piss me off.

__________________
I'm British, intelligent, erudite, and witty. Can't handle it? Get thee to goatse!