My last question was misunderstood. Atheist, Agnostic, or Theist?

Because atheist use to have the meaning of "believe no god exists" while agnostic meant "did not know" and theist meant "believe a God exists".

With atheists taking over agnosticism and rewriting what everything means, the whole term become stupid.

Hardly anyone claims to KNOW FOR SURE. So all that happened with this redefining of words is that all those who were agnostics are now "atheist" and all those who were atheist are still atheist.

The people who were atheists and believe no God exists get to hide behind no belief as they attack theism. It is quite intellectually cowardly and those types have now given what were agnostics, a bad name.

Neil S,

By your logic, since before we had no evidence that the earth was round, it wasn't. Further OBVIOUSLY, you like your little lack of evidence crap talk, but it is quite useless and STUPID. At the very least you MUST admit to testimonial evidence which is accepted as evidence in every court of law everywhere throughout all of human history. So you must mean evidence YOU find acceptable. To this point, I laugh cause I do not care at all what you find acceptable, and neither does anyone else but YOU.

You all ignore the inherent problem of distinction. We are talking about belief. Belief need not ahve the label of certianty or lack of certainty, what it does need, however, is clarity. Saying a cup is hot, a cup is cold or I don't know is clarity. Putting the I don't know group into the cup is cold group is just arbitrarily stupid.

That is what is being done!!!! Deny all you want. Say a means without or whatever crap you want to say, all you want, you have degraded the clarity of meaning by placing the "I don't know" group with the NO group. Your silly pretenses does nto make what I am saying any less true. And clearly you cannot rationally justify why anyone would place the "I don't know" group with the "No" group.

Is that the normal standard for other things? Democrat and Repubs, with all the independents going into dems? Would that make sense???

Edit: I read your post and your definitions. I also read the defintion from the 50s. I also read some literature written by mostly atheists that started the redefining process. There were actually words and meaning to words before you were born. Further the meaning of words have changed over time.

In fact, if you really want to show me wrong, pull up a dictionary from say 1920 and read the definition of atheist.

Edit:

I agree that the definitions you use are the "accepted" definitions of today. The reason I don't like them is because I find them silly. Take the person that firmly knows that there is no way to know whether or not God exists. This person would now be defined as a gnostic atheist, when he would have been defined as an agnostic.

Further, if you believe no god exists then you hold a belief, so simply claiming that this is a lack of belief is foolish.

each and every IQ try i have ever taken places me at between 120 and one hundred forty 5. i imagine the only hundred forty 5 replaced right into a fluke, even if. maximum checks placed me at 128 or 129. i do not understand if that makes me "above accepted intellectually" or no longer. this is only a huge determination, extremely, and it doesn't talk for the education i have had, the books i have study, the places i have traveled, or the reports i have had. Is there any thanks to truly sum up each and every thing that someone selections up in the time of their lives, and connect a score of a few style to it? because i don't think of so. i'm a theist (Christian). Edit: And no, i don't think that intelligence has any effect on what someone believes so a ways as faith is going. some geniuses are theists, some morons are atheists. The opposite is likewise actual. i imagine there's significantly better to it than intelligence. From what i have considered, this is not the surely factor of intelligence that makes a decision no matter if someone will be non secular or non secular, even if the kind of intelligence they have. those who interact in summary questioning better certainly look to gravitate in direction of a few type of religion or spirituality, at the same time as those who're susceptible better to the actual have a tendency to be atheist or agnostic. There are exceptions, for sure, yet for the most area, this appears the case from what i have considered.

It really doesn't matter to use so much time pondering on the label of what it is you are. You are what you say you are. That is all.

Somebody who doesn't have any idea what these words mean.

i.e - a theist could say they are an atheist (assuming the definition of atheist is the opposite) The point is, it wouldn't matter because the fact is that they are a theist either way. So labels don't matter it's simply what the fact comes too.

Ok, let me try a different approach, too.

Agnostics overwhelmingly present knowledge in a false light. Their claims seem to suggest we need 100% certainty to say we know something. We do not, or scientific knowledge would be impossible. Given scientific levels of certainty, and the overwhelming lack of substantive evidence for any deity, we have more than enough of a basis to say "I know no God exists." Anyone adding "agnostic" to "atheist" is thus not thinking things through.

I am an agnostic atheist. I'm frustrated by the number of people who don't know what the words agnostic and atheist mean, and/or who think they're mutually exclusive.

Why do you think it's so important to label people with one or any of those names?

Does it matter?

Why waste so much time arguing about the definition of those words?

Obviously.

Where is the question.

that's a good point, and thanks for the 2 other points

that's true.