Ken: I think it is a mistake to limit atheism to the belief that God doesn’t exist. There are many versions of God that any atheist would recognize as existing. (Nature, the Sun, people worshipped by others, etc.) So even though I as an atheist believe what you call God does not exist, keep in mind my views don’t represent all atheists, and your God doesn’t represent what everybody calls God.
Ken: If “to believe in” means to believe the claims made of God, then yes I agree with you. Though I don’t believe your God exists, if I did but was convinced he was just an advanced being from another planet, or something else other than God, I would still be atheist. Does this make sense to you?
Ken, it is pointless to debate whatever false "gods" an atheist might believe actually exist but that are not truly a god
- like the sun or my my dog, etc. That's a huge waste of time in debating. It's very, very simple:
An atheist is a person who doesn't believe ANY supernatural being with great power over people and nature exists.
Look at the dictionary definition of god:
1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
An atheist doesn't believe any entity described by numbers 1 and 2 exist!
Ken: I disagree; the agnostic claims there is no way of knowing.
Not quite - an agnostic doesn't need to claim there is "no way of knowing" - what makes a person an agnostic, least as compared to an atheist, is that they, personally don't know
if any God or gods exist, and yet, they also don't rule out the possibility of one or more of them existing
. So, the agnostic doesn't declare the matter decided, as does the atheist ("There are NO gods or God that exists!").
Ken: What does it mean to think there is no God but can’t categorically say there is no God? What does that mean?
That is merely an agnostic - particularly as you apply that belief to definitions 1 and 2, above.
Ken: Yes; logic, reason, or proof are not necessary to be an atheist, ...
Byblos: I mean, seriously, what else is there to discuss with Kenny? He effectively slammed the door shut on any form of rational discourse. I commend you Kenny, at least you've finally taken up the only logical (pardon the insult) position atheism has in its arsenal.
Byblos is absolutely correct - why debate at all if there is no evidence to be debated? And yet Ken also says to not assume he doesn't employ logic for his atheism. So then I would ask, WHAT logic exactly is he employing. The only thing I've seen him use is what so many atheists who want to argue evolution and cosmology, string theory, all that THEORETICAL stuff, and they always track back to, "Well, just because we don't have the proof or evidence NOW, doesn't mean our wild theories aren't possibly true. But that isn't evidence - it's merely SPECULATION!!!