I actually don't know anyone who asserts certainty that there are no gods, which of course is a far cry from not believing in any. Given the range of opinions available, it's reasonable to assume these folks exist (call me a theist regarding them), but I'd say they're a pretty steep minority.

Such a person would be a Gnostic Atheist. They assert knowledge and lack belief.

"no-belief-in-gods" which means... wait for it... No gods exist.

Now the rest of my post is validated.

No it doesn't. People may lack belief for many reasons. Ignorance being one that springs to mind, and it's obviously impossible to deny the existence of something that one has no knowledge of.

Alternately it may be that one has decided that insufficient evidence supports the concept of 'gods', so one simply disbelieves.

In any proposition there are more than the two alternatives of either believing or denying the possibility thereof.

You might assert that you personally are stronger than two men combined, I might simply disbelieve your assertion without denying the possibility that there may be someone on earth who is, or that it might even be you. I can just not-believe you.

I am not following your point here.

That's probably a consequence of having a fixed certainty that your novel definition of atheism is the correct and only one possible.
Which, amusingly considering the context, is a rather un-agnostic position to have got yourself into.

How is it un-agnostic. Am I believing I am right? Or am I presenting a philosophical argument against the validity of belief. I'm going with the second one.

Certainty in the absence of information is un-agnostic yes?

It's clear from your novel interpretation of atheism that you lack either sufficient information, or knowledge, or both, to define it - yet that hasn't stopped you. Ergo...

As for 'philosophical arguments' "against the validity of belief", that's a separate issue. Agnosticism may, or may not, be a valid philosophical position but starting your analysis using an incorrect definition of atheism doesn't bode well.

Note that both atheism and theism are loosely concerned with belief, or the absence of it, whereas agnosticism is addressing the topic of knowledge, or the absence of it.

Until there is new evidence that does so, I accept athieism as the most sound theory regarding supernatural beings. There is no logical contradiction in revising or rejecting the theory of athieism if and when compelling new evidence is presented.

As far as I am aware atheism is not a theory, as theories relate to science. It is a philosophical concept.

And while the supposition that supernatural being do not exist is indeed a hypothesis, one need first to validate the hypothesis by supplying supporting evidence. What evidence do you have to support this hypothesis?

Certainty in the absence of information is un-agnostic yes?

It's clear from your novel interpretation of atheism that you lack either sufficient information, or knowledge, or both, to define it - yet that hasn't stopped you. Ergo - it's an un-agnostic thing to do...

Or am I presenting a philosophical argument against the validity of belief. I'm going with the second one.

Note that both atheism and theism are loosely concerned with belief, or the absence of it, whereas agnosticism is addressing the topic of knowledge, or the absence of it.

As far as I am aware atheism is not a theory, as theories relate to science. It is a philosophical concept. And while the supposition that supernatural being do not exist is indeed a hypothesis, one need first to validate the hypothesis by supplying supporting evidence. What evidence do you have to support this hypothesis? Once enough peer reviewed evidence is supplied the hypothesis then becomes a theory. So I guess the question would be: how close are you to turning this hypothesis of your into a theory?

Poor choice of wording perhaps. I meant it is a theory - as in not proved. Didn't mean to imply it is a scientific theory.

Let me ask you, do you think agnosticism is a better position than expressions of belief in things about which one cannot be properly informed?
If yes, why aren't you arguing against theism, since that clearly involves believing in things for which insufficient evidence exists?
If no, why are you concerned with the matter at all?

You don't need to invent a new and idiosyncratic definition of theism to aim your alleged agnostic skepticism at it - everyone knows there's insufficient evidence of god things to assert they exist, yet theists everywhere do exactly that.
So why is your alleged agnosticism so preoccupied with an absence of belief?

I haven't read this entire thread, I have, however, read the argument on this last page. Basically you guys are arguing about the Meaning of the word "truth", with one side of the argument claiming that subjective truth is valid and the other claiming that it is not.

What you are failing to destinguish between eachother is, what are the conceptual perameters of the word truth, for example:

A man claim's to be abducted by aliens. For the "man", his experience is a reality (a subjective reality) and for him it is the truth.

The same man now attempts to convince others that the existence of aliens is a physical (objective) reality for all people (the man now atempting to move past his own subjective reality to influence objective reality, which is shared by all people), however he has no physical evidence (objective proof). He only has his personal experience (subjective proof)

Now here is the question that is at the very heart of the above debate: Is it a valid aproach to attemt to influence objective reality with nothing more than subjective proof: The answer is... NO! In order to influence objective reality one needs to present objective proof, which will be capable of influencing other subjective realities by delivering a physical (objective/subjective) experience - a repeatable experiment, for instance.

This very fundemental concept/line-of-reasoning is the lowest foundation, that the branch of philosophy, which specializes in objectivity (science) was built upon. 

Science makes this distinction:

Subjective truth is irrelevant because it has no influence on objective reality.

Now, one might ask this question:

Why are we being forced into this perspective (subjective truth is inferior to objective truth)? Well among others, there are two very good answers.

1. Science gets things done! Air plains, atomic reactors, microwave ovens, extraterrestrial exploration, architecture, electric lighting/power, the internet, modern medicine, and pretty much EVERYTHING one could think of that has the effect to sustain ones life, day to day.

2. When one places subjective reasoning before objective reasoning it leads to things such as, witch burnings, the holy inquisition, the crusades, the halebob  cult, Jimmy Jones and his cool-aid loving fans, the holocaust, slavery and other prejudices - the list continues on MUCH further than I care to  continue to catalogue it.

Here is a very powerful objective truth for anyone to consider: science has done more good for humanity (without doing any harm what-so-ever, and I will gladly defend that statement), in the several hundred years it has been functioning unimpeded (impeded by religion mostly when it was) than religion has ever done in its thousands of years of existence.

I do not know what "strong atheistic methods" you are referring to, also, I have not read Dawkins book, (and perhaps that is my failing) but:

How much more death, suffering and conflict is nessesary at the hands of the rigorous before we would be justified in doing something about it. Must we wait for humanity to wipe itself off the face of earth first. All the time technology is progressing at a frightening rate and every day our ability to destroy ourselves becomes just a little bit easier. Does it not disturb you that the vast majority of the people responsible for the governance of this planet are proponents of systems of logic that are responsible for an uncountable number of mosterous atrocities - the history of which still continues to this very day. Do you really trust our future to these people, with such colossal power to destroy at their disposal. (I am genuinely looking for an answer here. This is not a debate tactic)

I think Isaac Asimov said it best when he said:

"humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition."

To me, it seems that religion could not possibly disappear quickly enough. One less worry in the watches of the night.

I didn't give any dictionary definitions and haven't cited any dictionaries. I have instead referred to the origins of the words 'theism', 'gnostic' and the prefix 'a'.

Here is how the OED defines "atheism":

atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.

disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of.

deny

To contradict or gainsay (anything stated or alleged); to declare to be untrue or untenable, or not what it is stated to be.
Logic. The opposite of affirm; to assert the contradictory of (a proposition).
To refuse to admit the truth of (a doctrine or tenet); to reject as untrue or unfounded; the opposite of assert or maintain.
To refuse to recognize or acknowledge (a person or thing) as having a certain character or certain claims; to disown, disavow, repudiate, renounce.
Note that the OED definition covers the whole spectrum of atheist belief, from weak atheism (those who do not believe in or credit the existence of one or more gods) to strong atheism (those who assert the contrary position, that a god does not exist).

Here is the OED's definition of "agnostic":

agnostic A. sb. One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing.

It is interesting to compare this to Huxley's definition.

Webster's 3rd New International Dictionary Unabridged

Here is Webster's definition of atheism:

atheism n 1 a: disbelief in the existence of God or any other deity b: the doctrine that there is neither god nor any other deity--compare AGNOSTICISM 2: godlessness esp. in conduct

disbelief n: the act of disbelieving : mental refusal to accept (as a statement or proposition) as true

disbelieve vb vt : to hold not to be true or real : reject or withold belief in vi : to withold or reject belief

Note that again, both strong (1b) and weak (1a) atheism are included in the definition.p

Regardless as far as I am aware the is no peer revied theory wich claims that suppernatural bing do not exist, and there is a good reason behind why.

Talking about probability

Yes, the illuminati don't like it.

Let me ask you, do you think agnosticism is a better position than expressions of belief in things about which one cannot be properly informed?
If yes, why aren't you arguing against theism, since that clearly involves believing in things for which insufficient evidence exists?
If no, why are you concerned with the matter at all?

You don't need to invent a new and idiosyncratic definition of theism to aim your alleged agnostic skepticism at it - everyone knows there's insufficient evidence of god things to assert they exist, yet theists everywhere do exactly that.
So why is your alleged agnosticism so preoccupied with an absence of belief?

You cannot have have a non-belief.

I do argue against religion.
The following quotes were taken from the god delusion thread...

My coment was in reference to atheism. Your argument is bacicaly the same. You still need to get around that Huxley quote (you know the one you dodged) for agnosticism.

Oxford English dictionary:

Here is how the OED defines "atheism"...
/snip/

Let me ask you, do you think agnosticism is a better position than expressions of belief in things about which one cannot be properly informed?
If yes, why aren't you arguing against theism, since that clearly involves believing in things for which insufficient evidence exists?
If no, why are you concerned with the matter at all?

You don't need to invent a new and idiosyncratic definition of theism to aim your alleged agnostic skepticism at it - everyone knows there's insufficient evidence of god things to assert they exist, yet theists everywhere do exactly that.
So why is your alleged agnosticism so preoccupied with an absence of belief?

I am tired of arguing with you man. I have stated that there is the possibility that I may be wrong inspite of your claims to the contrary. I have also stated on several occasions that my statements are opinion. Now why don't you admit that it is possible that I could be right.

What is going on here is that you are an atheist and my ideas threten your little bubble of reality so you are simply attacking me in any way you can.

I won't respond to you again unless your attitude towards this descussion and myself changes severely.

I'm not threatened and I'm not attacking you. I'm disagreeing with your definition of atheism.

Because you keep re-stating your illogical and wrong definition of atheism and ignoring everything that demonstrates its vacuity.

No you are not. You are asserting that I am factually wrong, without asserting any factual evidence that you aright.

....

LC, you are the most dishonest and morally bankrupt person I have ever debated with. And that is saying a lot.

It seems you are attempting to portray a hierarchical superiority of reason to agnosticism and claim it has the true and proper authority over the atheist position that there is no god.

Also, how is my opponion that LC is most dishonest and morally bankrupt person I have ever debated with "totally false, misleading"?