I’ve never met an atheist face to face. Every single person that claimed to be, eventually admitted that he just didn’t know for sure. Which makes him agnostic.
But they are trying to redefine the words. They now try to say that Christians are really “Christian agnostic” since they are not “sure”, and atheists are “atheist agnostic”.
Don’t buy into it.
I actually prefer atheists to agnostics, and especially to dumb people who just don’t think or care. All the professed atheists I know at least have read the bible and wrestle with the question of the existence of God, the possibility of his presence on Earth in the form of Jesus Christ, etc... At some level, I sense they want to believe.
I’ve never met an atheist face to face.Hi! Nice to meet you.
Do you know that leprechauns don't exist? If you answered "No", then does that make you "agnostic" about leprechauns? And, if you can't reach a conclusion about leprechauns, how could you reach a decision about anything?
There's a big difference between "I can't be metaphysically certain that God doesn't exist, but I see no evidence of him" (atheist) and "I don't know" (agnostic).
You’ve never met me, then.
Faith determines belief in God. It is true that there can really only be agnostics without faith-—either in a God or in no God. Both take faith.
Dawkins is finally being honest— Atheism actually takes more faith than a belief in a Designer.
It all comes down to whether or not you think the question of Gold's existence is inherently knowable.
If you think that God probably does not exist and that there's no evidence for a sentient Supreme Being, but also that we'll never know for sure, then you are both an atheist and an agnostic.