Are there any "true" atheists?

[abaddon]

 

[Tiburon]

Unless you define "true" atheism as an outright denial of the possibility of a God(Gods) then I'd say there are plenty of true atheists.
Not outright dismissing the possibility that there could be a God doesn't make someone not a "true" atheist.
If you don't hold a belief in a God then you are an atheist.

How does agnosticism factor into your argument? As an agnostic, I contend that gods as defined by humans aren't real. However, I'm open to the idea that a fundamental singularity might underlie existence, which some might interpret as a god. I've always perceived the spectrum as Atheist - Agnostic - Theist.

Strictly speaking Agnosticism is the position that we cannot know.
Many use it as, they, personally, don't know.
Agnosticism is about knowledge.
Theism-atheism is about belief.
One can be an agnostic atheist. Claiming that we cannot ultimately know if there is or is not a God, and at the same time not finding any of the reasons presented for any God, sufficient to warrant belief.

 

[bilby]

People sometimes use the word agnostic as an in-between.

Yes, people are often wrong about things.

 

[Gospel]

Based on that chart, it seems I should update my profile to 'Agnostic Atheist'.

 

[steve_bank]

Based on that chart, it seems I should update my profile to 'Agnostic Atheist'.

For some reason I thought you were Christian.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Probably because his words are by Gospel.

 

[James Brown]

Every word he says is the Gospel truth!

 

[Gospel]

Strictly speaking Agnosticism is the position that we cannot know.
Many use it as, they, personally, don't know.
Agnosticism is about knowledge.
Theism-atheism is about belief.
One can be an agnostic atheist. Claiming that we cannot ultimately know if there is or is not a God, and at the same time not finding any of the reasons presented for any God, sufficient to warrant belief.

You (and others) have articulated the distinction between agnosticism and atheism quite clearly. I've updated my Basic Beliefs as result.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Actually, people lie about their feelings all the time.

CARM administrative announcement from years ago:
"Unbelievers are not allowed to debate on the theology boards. Unbelievers, atheists, agnostics are limited to posting on the secular boards only, per CARM rules."

That rule reminds me of the Nazi practice of placing stars of David on Jews to exclude them from participation in German society. The internet sure has turned out to be a handy tool to practice discrimination and bigotry.

Has the OP been honest with them?

They know I'm a truth seeker. Will they ban me for that?

 

[DBT]

Believing something without knowing it's true is faith. As
an agnostic does not hold a conviction or belief in the existence of a God or gods, perhaps ambivalent, having no knowledge or conviction in such things, they are nonetheless, atheistic.

 

[bilby]

Believing something without knowing it's true is faith. As
an agnostic does not hold a conviction or belief in the existence of a God or gods, perhaps ambivalent, having no knowledge or conviction in such things, they are nonetheless, atheistic.

As an agnostic doesn't know whether or not a god exists, he is completely at liberty to believe, on faith, anything he wants about the existence of god(s).

So there can be atheistic agnostics, and there can also be theistic agnostics.

The Church of England is riddled with people (some in very high ranking positions in the church) who are theistic agnostics. They believe that God - the Christian God of the Anglican church - exists, but are comfortable with saying that they have no evidence other than their faith, and hence cannot know that such a God exists. Though they usually conceal this by claiming that they "know in their hearts", rather than in their brains.

Personally, I use my heart to pump blood, and leave both knowledge and belief to the Central Nervous System, as modulated by the Endocrine System.

 

[bilby]

They know I'm a truth seeker. Will they ban me for that?

No.

Though that's what some banned members have claimed elsewhere, when they did something that broke the rules (such as preaching) and got themselves banned.

The rules of the board are explicit and public; Breaking them is the only way to get banned, but ignorance of the rules, or ignorance (real or feigned) that something you did has broken them, likely isn't going to be considered an excuse.

Regardless, in my extensive experience, this board rarely bans people outright (or even penalises them) for minor technical violations that are done with good intent. For example, discussing moderation is technically prohibited*, but that rule is rarely enforced unless the "discussion" in question constitutes a complaint (open or implied) about a specific case of enforcement of the rules.

It's easy to get banned here, but it's difficult to the point of being impossible to get banned for something not explicitly mentioned in the Terms of Use; Seeking the truth certainly won't get anyone banned, but accusing other members of lying, preaching, direct insults against active members, and several other explicitly prohibited actions, certainly could.

Only the most egregious transgressions would result in a member being banned without warning.





*And in the spirit of that rule, an extensive discussion of how the rules are enforced should be avoided here, and I raise it only because it's directly relevant to your question; Further clarification, if required, should be sought via the Private Feedback forum and/or private messages to the moderators.