A brief conversation

[demiurgent]

A brief conversation with a coworker, fortunately where no students could hear:

Him: Well, agnostics are just atheists without the courage of their convictions.

Me: Wow. That was both a lie and offensive. That's a neat trick.

He looked confused. I went on to tell him what I'm going to tell you, right now.

Atheism is not the lack of religion, despite the roots of the word. Atheism is a religion. It is the specific belief, without evidence, that the universe lacked intelligent or motive force behind its creation.

Many atheists refute this, mind. They say that they stand for science, and skepticism, and that any divine presence would need to be proven, and without that proof one must assume there is no divine presence. That, they often say, is simple science and stark reason.

And that's utter bullshit.

Science is agnostic.

Science says "I do not know, until I see. When I see, I can gather evidence and hypothesize. After I hypothesize I gather more evidence. I experiment. I test my hypothesis. I revise my hypothesis. If I and many other scientists perform these experiments and verify and reproduce my results, we might -- might -- upgrade my hypothesis to a theory, but that takes a lot of doing."

Atheism doesn't do any of that. Atheism takes it on faith that there is no god in any form, comprehensible or not. And the evidence for that is just as prevalent as the evidence for Yaweh, Allah, Aphrodite or Manannán mac Lir: absolutely none.

Guys? We don't know. We don't know who or what if anything started the cosmic ball rolling. We don't know if there's something beyond the edge of human perception. We just don't fucking know, okay?

Now, you can be convinced the Christians have it wrong. Or that the Greeks were full of shit. Or that the Wiccans are fooling themselves. You can be personally convinced that the universe is a cold place where everything is essentially chaotic and all things happened because of chance. That's fine.

But don't pretend you have an inside understanding that the religious nuts don't. You have a belief. Nothing more, nothing less. And that's fine. If it makes you happy, power to you.

And if you believe in a god, gods, goddesses, or whatever? Fine by me. Whatever helps you get to sleep, man.

Me? I'm agnostic. I don't have the hubris to think I've got the final answer. I'm still watching and waiting, and I'm keeping an open mind -- to all sides of the question.

And for the record? Don't you fucking dare say I don't have the courage of my convictions. It takes a hell of a lot more courage to admit what you don't know than assert what you believe to be true.

Sadly, it means I don't get to be nearly as smug as certain theists or atheists. But don't worry about me. I usually find something else to be smug about.

Comments

[ronin-kakuhito.livejournal.com]

You asked the question "Who Cares?"
I was giving a general motivation for careing about the search, if not the answer.
Unless that was merely a rhetorical flourish not worth including in the text, it is a valid question. My answer is that even if you don't care what the answer to the question is, you stand to gain from the attempts to find said answer. Thus everyone from the most naive egoist onward has something to gain from the existence of said search, even if it doesn't ever yield a final answer.
Anyone having a discussion like this on a media like this most likely spends their life surrounded by the products of research into questions that seemed as unrelated to everyday life as the big question of cosmology is. Many of those applications were the results of lines of research that didn't even come close to coming up with an answer to the original question, but that provided a secondary or tertiary result of "well, isn't that odd?"

[ronin-kakuhito.livejournal.com]

Applied research buffs.

[slarti.livejournal.com]

The term I tend to use is "agnopathy" -- "I don't know, and I don't care."

(Yes, this might possibly be an act of linguistic butchery. As with faith itself, I don't know, and I don't care. :-)

[demiurgent.livejournal.com]

Since you've radically redefined "non-theist" to itself be a theistic position

Utterly false.

I stated that Athesim to be a statement of belief and faith -- the faith in non-belief. That is not the same as calling it theist. Theist is defined as the belief in a God or Gods. Obviously that doesn't describe an atheist. However, that doesn't change that atheists are expressing a belief that itself does not have evidence in support of it.

What do you call someone who lacks belief in gods?

It depends on how they define that lack of belief. However, the idea that all people who lack belief in Gods are atheists -- IE, defined as an active disbelief, rather than a passive lack of belief -- is utterly flawed. There's a continuum of answers depending on a number of factors, and the attempt to reduce them to a binary state -- you believe in God/Gods or you don't -- does everyone involved a disservice.

Not someone who believes that all unknown things are totally impossible (I call that person an "idiot", not an "atheist" as you do)

...um... you know, I know you can read. I'd love to see the cited passage where I claimed anything even remotely like that.

Someone who considers that entities whose existence cannot be perceived nor subsidiary effects of their existence noticed are, obviously, totally irrelevant entities, and considering whether or not completely irrelevant things exist is a waste of time and effort?

See above. The answer to that could be 'atheist,' 'agnostic' or 'deist' depending on how they answered a whole host of subsidiary questions.

You've said you're an agnostic because you think there really might be something that can't be seen and can't be interacted with in any way out there, and that thing might be God.

That makes several times you claimed I said something that's not even remotely what I said, which seems at best odd to me. I said that I do not know any of these answers definitively. Not that God or something like him, her, it or them exists or doesn't, or that we're all a beta test of Spore. I didn't say I "think there really might be," I said I don't know if there is or isn't, and claiming knowledge either way would either take a leap of faith or a lie on my part, and I'm not doing either. Qualitative difference there.

What does that make someone who shares your complete lack of belief in any and all gods,

So... from "I don't know if there are gods or intelligences or not," you derive my "complete lack of belief in any or all gods." Hrm.

Well. I'm going to try to answer your question, regardless, but since I don't have a solid grasp on whether you have any grasp of what I'm saying, I'll try to cover all the bases.

1. If you're asking me "what if someone believes exactly as you do, Eric, but also doesn't give a shit because if there are gods, they clearly don't matter? What do you call them?"

I call them agnostics, since if they believe as I do they don't open with a belief for or against the question. There's nothing in agnosticism that demands someone be actively seeking an answer. It merely requires not actually thinking you have one, either way.

2. If you're asking me "what if someone doesn't believe in gods because he thinks everything he's heard is a load of horse dung and if it turned out he was wrong and they were out there, it wouldn't matter anyway?" I guess I'd waffle a bit, but would tend towards atheist because he's opening with, shall we say, a strong opinion on the subject.

None of which affects my own essay in the slightest, since it opened and closed with the same essential point: someone who asserts a nonexistence of God or Gods does not speak for me, and I resent the implication they might.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

I've heard "apatheist", too, but I don't think that's right, at all.

After all, the position I described is not saying "the existence of gods is irrelevant and/or uninteresting", it says "Since there is no evidence for any gods who actually exist, I believe in no gods. There may or not be gods who are not real, but who cares? Since they're not affecting the real world, their existence has been predefined to be unknowable, incrutable, and totally irrelevant. As soon as they BECOME relevant, they fall into the first category and their existence can be measured and proven."

[infintysquared.livejournal.com]

No, because every system must start with givens, stark definitions.

He's set out that the system he is using to analyze these arguments use as a definition for "to believe," "to assert that a particular fact is true."
The definition he's using for "to know," implies, "to have unshakable proof that a fact is true, without any possibility of doubt."

[demiurgent.livejournal.com]

That statement, if we had to classify it as theist, atheist or agnostic, I would classify as agnostic. It's not saying there are no gods, it is saying you have not found any evidence for them, so you do not believe in them.

It is, in the end, a difference between the active and the passive. The active disbelief in any form of intellect 'out there' is a very different animal from the essentially passive 'I haven't seen any reason to believe, so I don't believe.'

[infintysquared.livejournal.com]

What do you call someone who lacks belief in gods?

The currently accepted philosophical terminology is, "weak atheist."

One who lacks belief in gods, but also actively asserts that no sentient god is possible, is a "strong atheist."

Yes, there's connotations on every word, but you gotta call it something.

[slarti.livejournal.com]

Well, okay, I was answering your initial question: "What do you call someone who lacks belief in gods?" By my terminology, I lack belief. I do not believe they exist. I do not believe they don't exist. I, unlike an agnostic, do not have any sort of state where I actively leave myself open to the question of whether or not they might exist. I consider that question vaguely potentially interesting, and given some direct experience, it's by no means inconceivable that I could change my mind. In the direct day to day, however, I don't especially care, and I'm okay with that, because I am apathetic in most ways.

[jinwicked.livejournal.com]

Me? I'm agnostic. I don't have the hubris to think I've got the final answer. I'm still watching and waiting, and I'm keeping an open mind -- to all sides of the question.

Atheism is a lack of belief based on lack of evidence. I do not know a single atheist who wouldn't change his or her mind in a heartbeat given credible, reproducible evidence for the existence of god(s). This does not make them agnostic; it makes them realistic. I for one have actively sought such evidence because I am extremely eager to change my mind. I have prayed to any god(s) who might listen to ease my existential crisis — with no answer. We all routinely exercise a lack of belief in a variety of things for which there is a lack of evidence: dowsing, ESP, ghosts, telekinesis, UFOs, the list goes on. Only lack of belief in god(s) is ever made into an issue because the notion is so offensive and unpalatable to a large portion of the population. The existence of atheists is threatening to many religious people whereas psychics and ghost hunters are used to dealing with skeptics and disbelievers.

Sadly, it means I don't get to be nearly as smug as certain theists or atheists. But don't worry about me. I usually find something else to be smug about.

Oh, I wouldn't say that. You're doing a pretty good job here.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Utterly false.

Not so. From your original post:

Atheism is a religion.

You've defined not having a religion as a religion. While you're at it, why not call "bald" a hair colour and "hunger" a kind of dinner?

However, that doesn't change that atheists are expressing a belief that itself does not have evidence in support of it.

Oh, come off it. Do you believe in Santa Claus, or the Tooth Fairy? How about the Flying Spaghetti monster?

Is your lack of belief in the literal existence of toymaking elves and flying reindeer a positive statement? If not, why is my similar lack of belief in Zeus, and Jesus, and all the *other* Tooth Fairies?

"Not believing in something" is not an act of faith, nor does it involve a positive statement of any sort.

However, the idea that all people who lack belief in Gods are atheists [...] is utterly flawed. There's a continuum of answers depending on a number of factors, and the attempt to reduce them to a binary state -- you believe in God/Gods or you don't -- does everyone involved a disservice.

How is it *not* a binary statement? Either you have active, positive belief in the existence of god(s), or you don't. There's no room in the middle for anything except the "I don't know" and "it can't be known" positions, which are conveniently covered by the term "agnostic" - one who professes a lack of knowledge.

I'd love to see the cited passage where I claimed anything even remotely like that.

Here:
without that proof one must assume there is no divine presence.
Atheism takes it on faith that there is no god in any form, comprehensible or not.

Combine that with your statements on science being unable to ever take a stand on religion (not correct) due to being unable to prove an untestable statement (entirely correct), and you've defined "atheist" as someone who blindly refuses to believe in anything that isn't already proven, and refuses to look.

And THAT'S bullshit.

I said I don't know if there is or isn't,

Meaning you think there might be, which is what I said.

So... from "I don't know if there are gods or intelligences or not," you derive my "complete lack of belief in any or all gods." Hrm.

From what you've said? You don't believe in any gods. You believe gods might exist, but you don't have one, or a pantheon, or all, that you believe really exist.

There's nothing in agnosticism that demands someone be actively seeking an answer. It merely requires not actually thinking you have one, either way.

And I've just had an A-Ha moment, where I really do see the difference between our position, in the simplest way I've ever found:

You feel you don't have an answer to the question.

I don't see any reason to have the question in the first place.

someone who asserts a nonexistence of God or Gods does not speak for me, and I resent the implication they might.

And I'd agree with you on that principle, except that you segued into a rant, insulted my intelligence, and called me a clueless asshole in the process.

Atheism takes it on faith that there is no god in any form, comprehensible or not.

UR DOIN IT RONG.

[longwing.livejournal.com]

Here, sodding, here.

That statement about cowardice by the atheists has always made me mildly uneasy. You've articulated the reason perfectly.

[pope-guilty.livejournal.com]

Engineering is a well-explored segment of science.

[dvandom.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, in a religiously drenched society full of humans with our tendency towards binary thinking, it doesn't matter how carefully people craft new words to try to shade the grays...as soon as common usage gets its hands on the words, they all get translated into either "evil person" or "person waiting for me to convert them". :/

[demiurgent.livejournal.com]

Oh, come off it. Do you believe in Santa Claus, or the Tooth Fairy? How about the Flying Spaghetti monster?

You are conflating a disbelief in an intellect without innate definition with a disbelief in specifics. Atheism doesn't mean "I don't believe in Jesus," it means "I don't believe in any gods."

And yes, I am stating a difference between a passive lack of belief and an active one.

I stated that Atheism -- the active belief there is no deity or intellect behind the scenes -- as a religion. And you know what? You're right. I was wrong to say so. Because what I meant -- and what I should have said -- was that it was a faith. Atheism requires the faith -- the 'courage of one's convictions,' to paraphrase the coworker I was originally speaking of -- to say "no, there is no imaginary friend behind the scenes. There is no Jesus, no Allah, no nobody. It's just us and the void, baby, and you should enjoy life now because there's nothing after it."

Combine that with your statements on science being unable to ever take a stand on religion (not correct)

Utterly correct. Scientists might take a stand on religion. They often have -- both for and against. But the only stand science can take on religion is in the area of verifiable claims. Science can test whether or not the Earth is more than 3,000 years old or whether or not homo sapiens were contemporary of the dinosaurs.

Science can't test whether or not a guy named Steve created the universe during a long lunch, or who created Steve in the first place. Science works with the observable, and leaves the ineffable to philosophy. And attempts to make science the antonym of faith just confuse the issue.

"Not believing in something" is not an act of faith, nor does it involve a positive statement of any sort.

"There is no God" is a definite statement. Positive, negative or otherwise, it is a statement of belief.

and you've defined "atheist" as someone who blindly refuses to believe in anything that isn't already proven, and refuses to look.

I stand by my earlier statements. An atheist is one who asserts there is no God. That doesn't make them incapable of changing their mind later (see Mr. Adders's comments for proof).

You're trying to expand my statement to include people who say 'I haven't seen any reason to believe in gods, and I don't care to look.' And I said before and I say now that that statement's too complex to just take as one value.

However, it seems more and more that you're describing a form of agnosticism instead of atheism on your side of the table. Which makes me wonder why we're even having the argument, unless it comes down to you wanting to call yourself an atheist. In which case, feel free. It's nothing to me whether you do or you don't.

And I've just had an A-Ha moment, where I really do see the difference between our position, in the simplest way I've ever found:

You feel you don't have an answer to the question.

I don't see any reason to have the question in the first place.

Which are, as you say, perfectly valid different philosophical positions. None of which makes me an atheist.

Finally, you quoted several times:

Atheism takes it on faith that there is no god in any form, comprehensible or not.

I stand by this. If you don't want to be tagged by that statement, don't call yourself an atheist. I'm entirely comfortable with Mister Grant's assertion he's an Atheist. He's come right out and said it: he doesn't believe in anyone's imaginary friend. And however he and I debate -- and however he takes exception to my definition -- I think he'll be happy to call himself an atheist and happy enough to let me call myself an agnostic. What he calls me will be more colorful.

One question I do have for you, however. If you honestly don't care -- don't care about the question, don't care about the answer -- then why on Earth do you care about the terminology?

[demiurgent.livejournal.com]

Sadly, it means I don't get to be nearly as smug as certain theists or atheists. But don't worry about me. I usually find something else to be smug about.

Oh, I wouldn't say that. You're doing a pretty good job here.

Which, of course, was the point of the last sentence. :)

However:

I do not know a single atheist who wouldn't change his or her mind in a heartbeat given credible, reproducible evidence for the existence of god(s).

I actually know quite a few. Thus the "there must be a logical explanation!" cliche. However, I also know other atheists who would accept evidence if it were presented, so I'm not trying to paint with a broad brush here.

I for one have actively sought such evidence because I am extremely eager to change my mind. I have prayed to any god(s) who might listen to ease my existential crisis — with no answer.

I honestly don't want to be offensive here, but why do you feel you have to call yourself an atheist here, as opposed to an agnostic? I accept you don't believe in any gods, but it sounds like you're not just keeping an open mind on the subject, but aggressively pursuing it.

As for the question of skeptics and other elements of the spiritual or paranormal -- that may be getting afield of the topic, but I think it's actually pretty related. As you say, the mindsets are closely related -- and in the case of a good number of public atheists, converge entirely.

But as you also say, the adherents of the paranormal are more used to it, because they're generally used to being on the margins. Theists are in the center, particularly in our country, and there's a lot who are offended by the very concept of atheism. So it's a hot button issue, as you say.

Which is probably where some of my annoyance is coming from. In a world where the loud voices -- the Evangelical Right v. the Dawkins contingent, if you will -- are forcing the whole debate into black and white, yes or no, it pisses me off to be told I have to fall into one of those two camps. I don't, and no one's going to make me. If my opinions or beliefs change, it will be because of my own experiences and life, not someone else's.

[adders.livejournal.com]

Oh, don't worry. I won't drink more that two, maybe three, bottles of whisky.

[elmo-iscariot.livejournal.com]

Atheism is not the lack of religion, despite the roots of the word. Atheism is a religion. It is the specific belief, without evidence, that the universe lacked intelligent or motive force behind its creation.

...

I would argue in return that if your version of Atheism is "I don't believe in any of those deities -- if I see one I'll believe in it" doesn't include an active disbelief...

Your idea that "active" certainty is a fundamental component of atheism doesn't seem to be founded.

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

atheism
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

The first definition requires only "disbelief":

disbelief:
Refusal or reluctance to believe.

All that's required to be called an "atheist" is a refusal to believe. I have that. So I can accurately call myself an atheist without saying "I know for certain that there's no god". An atheist can be a person who simply doesn't believe _or_ a person who's certain.

On the other hand:

agnostic
1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

1a doesn't describe me; the belief that it's impossible to know something? The belief that, no matter what might happen in the future or what we learn to do, we can never under any circumstances find conclusive evidence one way or the other? _That's_ bullshit unfounded certainty.

I'll side with you in rejecting the "agnostics are cowards!" silliness, but your definitions of the two terms simply aren't accurate, nor are your conclusions about identifying as an atheist.

Now, if you wanna say "prescriptivism!" and argue that your definition trumps the AHD, then it's unlikely the conversation can go much further. ;)

[blackbyrd2.livejournal.com]

Most people I run across, if they hear the word agnostic, think it means the person believes in the likelihood of some sentient God or creative force or whatever, but doesn't limit it to a specific belief system, much less a denomination. Maybe it's Karma, or Cosmic Balance instead of a sentient being, but all agnostics are generally thought of as having some kind of belief in an orderly universe in which 'good' and 'evil' exist, or are balanced in some way. They believe there's some kind of reason for life and that after death some kind of justice/reward is meted out.

That's not to say that definition is accurate, just that it's a common interpretation of the term.

Atheists, on the other hand, are generally regarded as foaming at the mouth unbelievers who are certain there's no deity of any kind. While your definition of the term is common, it's still a kinder definition than the one most people apply to agnostic, and closer to what I believe. When I'm asked, and I don't want to spend half an hour explaining my position, I usually just say I'm an atheist.

So my question is, what neat little pigeonhole could I actually be placed in, so I can easily identify my particular views on the existence of deities when asked?

I believe that there may or may not be a sentient being which created the universe, and there may or may not be an afterlife in which I could spend eternity in the presence of this hypothetical being.
However, if there is a sentient being, it is either completely impotent, non-responsive, or just plain whimsically callous and cruel. In any case, it is not worth my time to pay attention to it, much less shower it with devotion and worship because it either doesn't care, or it doesn't matter (or worse, you really don't want to draw its attention.) I certainly wouldn't want to spend eternity basking in the glow of such a being.
The more likely scenario is that there's nothing there at all and that after death, we cease to exist. That scenario is so likely as to exclude the other scenarios from serious consideration, but even if the alternate is true, it wouldn't change my behavior in any fashion.

These conclusions are based on examination and observation of various religions, the world and events talking place in it, the concept of free will and determinism, and logical deductions based on those observations.

If god exists (extremely small, even microscopic possibility) he is at best irrelevant and impotent, and a waste of my time.

So what am I?

[shortpacked.livejournal.com]

Then I am not sure why people can't know things are true, according to one system with stark definitions.

I can know the sky is dark out right now. I just looked. I am looking, out the corner of my eye, so it didn't just change back to daylight when I wasn't paying attention for that one second.

Furthermore, I think I'm pretty safe to say that I also know that the sun will come up the next day and will set again in the evening. I can't prove it, but I think there's enough evidence to provide reasonable doubt.

My point is, we can know a lot. That's what our brains do -- notice patterns, and make predictions for the future. Saying we can't actually know anything ever, just because there's room for any amount of doubt at all, no matter how insubstantial, is way too Descartes for me. It gets in the way of building on previous knowledge and learning new things, and it provides an easy out for those who'd really prefer to stop encountering things that challenge their worldview. "Scientists can't REALLY know anything" is what keeps Creationism in schools. And it's dishonest.

[clodia-risa.livejournal.com]

Very well said. I consider there to be two kinds of agnostics - the kind that is waiting for proof, and the kind that thinks that there are better things to worry about. These two easily overlap.

In the same way, I think that there is a fine line of atheism - either simply not believing in gods or believing that there are not gods. I find the line is often the amount of asshattery that the person exhibits. But I'm being silly.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

. But the only stand science can take on religion is in the area of verifiable claims. Science can test whether or not the Earth is more than 3,000 years old or whether or not homo sapiens were contemporary of the dinosaurs.

... and, thus, science CAN examine the claims of religion, and so science CAN take a stand in the matter of religion.

It can, and often does, prove religions to be *false*. It can also prove specific claims of religions to be true.

And attempts to make science the antonym of faith just confuse the issue.

Uh, science *is* the antonym of faith. Faith is belief without (or in opposition to) evidence. Science involves only evidence. They are, in fact, totally opposite. However, faith, not concerning itself with evidence, goes into areas that science can't and has no interest in following. Science and faith don't always conflict, because faith, being nonscientific, concerns itself with nonscientific things.

When faith attempts to move into the realm of science, however, science destroys it, every time. It always has, and it always will, because when applied to testable claims either science will prove faith incorrect or it will remove the base requirement of faith by providing evidence.

An atheist is one who asserts there is no God.

No. That's sloppy terminology and sloppy thinking. There's no need to "assert no god" any more than there's a need to "believe in no Santa Claus, underpants gnomes, Tooth Fairy, or Zeus". Reducing things to the level of claiming "believe in the lack of" incorrectly cedes the validity of the question *in the first place* to the crazy people who demand that you talk to their invisible friend.

You no more "believe in a lack of gods" than you "believe in the lack of particles of Monetarium, which cause things to have value" or "believe in the lack of purple dogs who will EAT YOUR FACE if you don't spit twice a day"

As soon as you start claiming that a lack of belief is a belief in the lack, you're stuck "not believing" *every single wrong idiotic thing that anyone can imagine*, with the inevitable concomitant result that you're making a "leap of faith" in the "absence of evidence", and so you're JUST as wrong as anyone who says "the love of Monetarium is the root of all evil" is without proof.

Fuck that.

The question itself is wrong.

If you honestly don't care -- don't care about the question, don't care about the answer -- then why on Earth do you care about the terminology?

I'm not one of the people who don't care at all. I have examined the positive evidence of reality-affecting gods existing (none), and so concluded that no reality-affecting gods exist. All that remains, then, are the potential gods who *do not* affect reality - and my "don't care" statement shows up THERE. Since they don't affect reality, they're completely irrelevant, and considering their possible existence is a meaningless waste of time.

At no point in here is a positive statement of belief, any more than your disbelief that Monetarium particles are what makes that piece of paper with the writing on it more valuable than the envelope it came in is a positive belief.

[jinwicked.livejournal.com]

I honestly don't want to be offensive here, but why do you feel you have to call yourself an atheist here, as opposed to an agnostic? I accept you don't believe in any gods, but it sounds like you're not just keeping an open mind on the subject, but aggressively pursuing it.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines agnostic as

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

I don't believe the existence of god(s) are unknowable. I believe, based on my own personal analysis of history, politics, and psychology, that god(s) are a human product of wishful thinking and a coping mechanism to grapple with our own mortality. These conclusions combined with the complete lack of scientific evidence for god(s) brings me to my current position. I am not an agnostic. I am an atheist. I am an atheist who would desperately like to be proven wrong, but I am still an atheist.

To be agnostic, you must assert that because something is unknowable, neither party can be correct or have superiority over the other. But that is an intellectually dishonest position. We are all born atheists. We seek out faith when we realize we don't want to die. We seek out faith when we feel life should have a greater meaning or purpose. We are indoctrinated to faith when it is taught to us by our family and our society.

If the person who claims the existence of god(s) is ultimately unknowable is honest with him or herself, he or she must admit that the atheist position is the more logical and more likely choice. Most people do not believe in most of the gods worshipped over the course of human history. The atheist simply takes it one step further. Why would someone who admits there is no evidence for the existence of god(s) continue to sit on the fence? You don't believe in the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus, but you can't prove they don't exist any more than ghosts, UFOs, or god(s).

This is at the root of the atheist's comment from your original post.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

What you're running into, at that point, is a case of sloppy definitions - the same way that "theory" in common usage means "hypothesis, not theory" in technical usage, you're hitting a point of conflating "knowledge", "belief", and "faith" into a single word.

You really need to set down what these words *mean*, and get THAT agreed on, before you can argue with them.

(I suggest: "Belief: An assertion of a positive statement as fact" and "Faith: Belief without evidence, or belief contrary to evidence")

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

To be agnostic, you must assert that because something is unknowable, neither party can be correct or have superiority over the other.

I would tend to add to this definition the possibility that the agnostic doesn't believe the answer is unknowable, but only that he does not know it.

M-W supports that, as well, as much as I hate going to a dictionary in a *technical* discussion, as dictionaries reflect common usage, not technical usage. See also: "It's just a theory!"