Well I personally don't like to use the two words agnostic and atheist together. They are two words with completely different meanings in my opinion. For me agnostic is having no beleif in god but a a beleif in the poosibilty of god, atheist on the other hand is not having even a belief in the possibility of god.

I would consider myself agnostic.

The problem here is belief. There is just no reason to own any beliefs at all. Instead of owning beliefs, we can utilize hypothesis, theory, and models to make predictions about things in the world.

Either I don't know, I have a guess (a hypothesis), or I know (with relatively high probability). Nowhere do I require the ownership of a belief or absolutes (and if you think about it, only a believer could pretend to know about absolutes, something not even in principle testable for mortal humans). If you know something, there is just no reason to believe in it.

While I completely agree, I personally don't label people agnostic if they can't embrace their own absence of knowledge on the issue. Some people go so far as to say they know for sure, they they are correct in their belief or lack thereof. Yes, sure you and I know that they are agnostic, but they aren't willing to accept it, maybe even after an explanation of it's true meaning. Therefore, I don't mind seeing the "agnostic" qualifier used to describe someones atheism or theism. Afterall, using this qualifier helps people who think that they can be an agnostic without being an atheist or theist to see that they need to do a little research. Hearing someone is an agnostic atheist, as an "agnostic" makes you wonder, what the hell are you talking about... it piques your curiousity, and hopefully your thirst for knowledge. Everyone on Earth is either atheist or theist, many Americans claiming the title "agnostic" exclusively are unaware of this fact.

Jonathan, agnosticism pertains to knowledge not belief. Check out this great article that might shed some light: http://www.rationalresponders.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=5

Jonathan, do you have a positive belief in a God, or are you absent of that positive belief?

Congrats Stephen... that means(technically) u are an atheist
but like Sapient said is okay to call urself an agnostic...

but i think it would be better if we had as many people calling themselves atheists as possible.

I think there's a difference between "belief" and "nothing but belief". For example, when I get on a plane, I believe the plane won't crash. When I eat food, I believe I won't get food poisoning. When I go to bed, I believe I will wake up in the morning. I don't know any of these things for certain, but I wouldn't say that they are based on "nothing but belief", nor will they likely prove false.

A belief that is based on "nothing but belief" may well prove false, but I think that most beliefs aren't this blind. Most beliefs have some kind of logic behind them.

I would say that belief is a good and rational response to uncertainties. When I got married, I couldn't be certain that I was making the right decision for my life. There was no way to put it "in terms of probabilities", but I believed that I was making the right decision, so I went through with it - and, yes, it was the right decision for my life (at least most days). I would say that without belief, we can be paralyzed into inaction, since we can't always determine the probabilities. Maybe a decision will work out and maybe it won't, but belief that a certain decision will benefit you helps you make that decision.

David

What about skeptic? Discussions with theists rarely remain firmly planted on the existence or non-existence of God or gods. Peripheral issues come into play, like whether or not Jesus existed, creationism vs. evolution, and the concept of absolutism with regard to morality.

I find that skeptic is much more useful when I choose to label myself. Of course, even skepticism has problems unless it?s defined early in the discussion. On MySpace I make mention of the fact that I've been called a cynic on a number of occasions. I've also had to inform people that I'm not referring to philosophical skepticism.

I think part of the problem is that no matter how we label ourselves, we?re always going to be on the defensive because such a large majority of human beings believe in God or gods. We are always going to be misunderstood, and I don?t know if there?s a way to get around that. We can quibble over the usefulness of a word like atheism, but is it going to have a profound effect on the more important debate?

Which would lead us to willful ignorance. In all cases they're choosing to either ignore certain parts of reality so that their beliefs seem logical, or they are being dishonest with themselves, or both. It would be as if you got on that plane with certainty that it wouldn't crash. That type of belief requires ignorance, dishonesty, or both.

You seem to be confused here. I get reminded of Plato's fictional character Glaucon who created his very own definition for selfishness to mean 'doing what you want to do' or 'acting on your own desires' and then claiming that everyone is selfish because everyone acts on their own accord.

Certainly not everything is going to be known, but that doesn't mean that you then have to hold on to a 'belief'. This is just the type of error Glaucon committed. First you must understand what a belief actually is. After, you can then avoid strawman arguments.

What you are acting on is 'speculation'. If I were to say, "I believe it will rain tonight" you can simply replace that with "I think it will rain tonight." Most simple beliefs come from the expression of the experience of external events. From past experience, for example, people believe that dark clouds can produce rain, therefore, we attempt to predict the weather by forecasting from past events. Note that in most instances, one can replace the word "believe" with the word "think".

Indeed, the intent of most beliefs aim at predicting the future in some form or another. However, to believe that an event will occur can produce disappointment if the prediction never happens.* To make a prediction based on past events alone does not require believing in the future event, but rather, a good guess as to what may or may not happen. Belief represents a type of conscious mental thought, a subclass of many kinds of mental activity. Thinking may or may not include beliefs or faiths. Therefore, when I use the word "think" I mean it to represent thought absent of belief.

Many a believer, religious and atheist alike, will become astonished at any statement against belief, if for no other reason because they believe and the people around them have beliefs. They tend to form a belief-of-its-own that projects beliefs onto others. However, simply because most people own beliefs does not necessarily follow that all people require the concept of belief. To claim the knowledge that everyone on earth believes in something portends an astonishing proclamation. It would require an omniscient ability to see into the minds of every human on earth. Many people fail to understand that belief requires conscious acceptance. People who own beliefs (unless they lie) do not deny them. Quite the contrary, people who believe, admit their beliefs quite readily. Furthermore, few people stop to ask what we mean by beliefs or understand that one can replace belief with other forms of "thinking."

*Footnote: This particular sentence reminds me of 'believing in yourself' which I submit is a total crock of shit. I don't believe in myself. I *know* myself. I have observed that most people who claim they believe in themselves deceive themselves. For example, look at all the disappointed people who audition for American Idol. Anything fits into a belief, including superstitions and false expectations. As a result, they hurt themselves when they discover that they really don't know themselves. Knowledge always trumps belief.