It makes more sense if you look at it in terms of a court case. After all the arguements and evidence is presented the decision is made whether the person on trial is guilty or not. Do we really know that person did it or didn't do it? No. People look at the arguements brought forth by both sides and decide which has the best arguement. Athiests have decided that the arguements against the existence of a supreme being are superior (usually this arguement is the problem of evil) to the ones for the existence of a supreme being. Atheism, those who have actually studied both sides, is in no way close minded. If they said "I think there is no God and nothing will change my mind" then yes they are close minded. The same can be asked of a thiest: "How can a thiest be open minded while making an absolute statement (God exists) without absolute knowledge?" The same explanation applies to why this is also not closed minded. What is left is agnosticism. Which, in one version, says "we can't know." Again this is an absolute statement. How do you know we can't know? Of the three stances this is the only contradiction. Looks like where ever we turn we run into the same problem.

As posted elsewhere, the name "atheist" means "No God." A (no, not, without, i.e. acapella) + theist (from Gr. word for God) = "No God." It is a declaration that God does not exist, period. Agnostic on the other hand means "No Knowledge." A (no, not, without) + Gnostic (from Gr. gnosis, or knowledge) = " No knowledge [of God]." According to Webster's, "an atheist rejects all religious belief and denies the existence of God; an agnostic questions the existence of God, heaven, etc. in the absence of material proof and in unwillingness to accept supernatural revelation." Therefore, an agnostic may not believe in God but at least will admit they don't know for sure. This is different from an atheist whose very name means an absolute declaration that God in any form cannot and must not exist. +*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+* To Iamstuey: Webster's seems to think it means an absolute claim, so you're not just calling me a liar, but the most commonly accepted source for defining words in the English language.

If you want to base this on WEBSTERS DEFINITION: "one who believes that there is no deity" belief is by no means an absolute statement that a supreme being can not exist! Joshua you are wrong. The question has been modified since my first answer. It originally had to do with the open mindedness of atheists. I think the mistake by Joshua is that he is claiming that athiests think that they know a supreme being does not exist, this is not the case at all. Nothing in the definition of athiest makes in an ABSOLUTE claim. If it is an absolute claim then theism has the exact same problem: an absolute claim that a God exists. The exact definition of agnosticism is more of a problem that than of athiesm. A claim to no knowledge is a false claim. You do have some knowledge that can be applied to the arguement. Athiests claim that the best case that can be made is that there is no supreme being, and theists claim the exact opposite. In philosophy you try and find all the information you can about a certain subject and make the best case possible, but if new information arrives one must be willing to change one's case. This is how it works with atheists. They think the best case is that there is no supreme being, but they are not saying that if new information arrives that they wont be open to changing their stance. Some atheists probably do claim there is no God, period. These people need to take some courses in philosophy, because that stance makes absolutely no sense. (The major arguments in the theism debate are: the problem of evil, the ontological arguement, the teleological arguement, and the cosmological arguement. I recommend reading up on them, they are all very interesting.) This second part is in response to Joshua's answer. In my original answer I made an example of one particular form of agnosticism (that "we can't know") there are three forms of agnosticism: 1. "We don't know as of yet." Claiming this is bold, have you looked at every piece of evidence and every arguement ever made for and against the existence of a supreme being? If you have not then you can not claim this as the reason for agnosticism. 2. "We can't know." Simply put how do you know we can't know? and 3. "I don't know." This is a popular version of agnosticism, but the problem is it is the easy way out of making a decision. If you are on a jury are you going to say "Your honor, I do not know if this person is guilty."? I hope not. You make a decision based on the best case and if you are truely torn you go back to the default answer of 'not guilty.' (Innocent until proven guilty.) In terms of theism there is a different default answer that is usually based on Pascal's wager (this is not the only basis of a default answer). It basically states 'better safe than sorry.' If you are a theist and are wrong, you lose little (you just die and thats the end), but if you are right you win big (heaven for example). If you are an atheist and are wrong, you lose big (hell for example), but if you are right you win little (you just die and thats the end). If you use Pascal's wager then the default stance is theism. Knowing is not the issue here, the issue here is making the best possible case based on the information you have. Is the best possible case "I don't know"? In life you don't have all the information, but you have to make decisions anyway. This is especially true of important decisions, and I would say your stance on a supreme being is a very important life decision. You originally said "It is a declaration that God does not exist, period." In your same line of thinking isn't theism a declaration that a "God does exist, period." Why do you find fault with the athiest view, but not the thiest view?

If you want to base this on definitions of Atheist lets do it... WEBSTERS DEFINITION: "one who believes that there is no deity" ENCARTA: "somebody who does not believe in God or deities" CAMBRIDGE: "someone who believes that God or gods do not exist" AMERICAN HERITAGE: " One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods" Josh want to tell me where any of these dictionaries say atheism claims no god, period? It seems the common theme is the word belief. Lets see what good ole webster's says about belief: 1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing 2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group 3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence WOW! its exactly what I have been saying...interesting.

I think many atheists make the statement "I do not believe there is a God", I would only use the phrase "God doesn't exist" for simplicity. In a serious debate I doubt many people would have the arrogance to say that there is no God and can't possibly be one. For most atheists the decsion is based on a balance of probability, not absolute truths.

It's interesting how a Christian and an Atheist comes at this from entirely different viewpoints. An atheist is thinking about *evidence*, not any absolute knowledge. By that measure, it makes more sense to ask, how can deists make an absolute statement (God exists) without any evidence to prove it? Because noone has "absolute knowledge", because we none of us are omniscient, we can choose to rely on either evidence or faith. An atheist is someone who sees no evidence of a God and therefore makes the conclusion that God doesn't exist. Some varieties of atheist will allow for there being evidence that they have not yet seen, knowledge that is beyond their grasp, that would make it evident that a God does exist and that would change their position on the subject. But other atheists feel they have received all of the information that they need on the subject to make a conclusion. To illustrate how an atheist can make an absolute statement without absolute knowledge, I will make such a statement now. There are no such things as unicorns. No one has ever photographed a unicorn, or found the bones of a unicorn, nor have there been any reliable eyewitness reports. Therefore I conclude that there is not, nor has there ever been, unicorns. To make this statement, I am ignoring a few possibilities, such as that there could have been unicorns a very long time ago and the evidence for their existence has washed away with time. Legends of their existence could have been based on the memory of a creature that did once exist. There could also be unicorns hidden away somewhere in the world that have not been detected. However, I don't find any of that very convincing and therefore even though I don't know for certain that these possibilities are untrue I am making an absolute conclusion that there are no unicorns. Because it is impossible to know everything, we have to draw conclusions from evidence and from what we feel in our hearts to be true. Both positions (deist and atheist) are understandable in this ambiguous world. Please remember that while someone else's conclusions may seem impossible to you, your own conclusions would appear equally irrational to them. Try to be respectful of their viewpoint even when you feel that they are wrong.

They are trying to block out of their mind the doom that awaits them for ignoring God, so they can try and live a worry free life. Will Jesus say that "He ever knew you"? You will face Him. I put my life on it. And I have many unargueable proofs of God's existence, based upon medical proof of the miracles I have seen happen through His power at the name of Jesus. A prime example being my mother being healed of her Multiple Sclerosis of 27 years through the prayer of faith in the name of Jesus. We have the MRI's to prove it. And it isn't a case of remission either, that's not the kind she had.

They can't because without God you have no knowledge. As the Bible states, "Only a fool says there is no God." Bottom line: Jesus is our Saviour and God exists.

You could try and turn this on its head and say "How can a believer claim that there is a God with no absolute knowledge?". The fact is that there IS no absolute knowledge, there is only what you personally believe, on weighing up what scant evidence we have either way, to be true. A Christian (or a Muslim, or any God-worshipping religion) may believe they have "absolute knowledge" because"God is absolute knowledge" or some other such Biblical soundbite- but at the end of the day its all self-referential- they know there's a God because the Bible says so, and they know the Bible's true because it says it is. When it comes to God, there IS no absolute knowledge. If we were to require absolute knowledge to make an absolute statement we'd all be agnostics. Its a statement of belief, not a statement of fact- and all you need for a statemnet of belief is- well- belief.

I think I should clarify some definitions :) There are many types of 'theism' The main ones are: Atheism - there isn't a god(s) Monotheism - there is a single god Polytheism - there are multiple gods Pantheism - nature is god They are just rough definitions off the top of my head, using the word 'god' for the sake of comparability, sorry if they aren't 100% accurate :P So, you can gather from that that Atheism is not a simple statement of "there is no god", it is just the 'belief' that there is no god, just as monotheistic religions such as Christianity and Islam 'believe' that there 'is' a god :) Of course, your question also begs the obvious question in return, how can any religious person make the absolute statement that "God does exist", without absolute knowledge ;) Quite simply, scientifically, logically, or otherwise, it is impossible to prove an absolute positive or negative, unless you have tested literally -every- example/situation/etc, throughout time, from the start up until the end of the entire universe People use the word 'proven' simply to say that you would be very very safe to say it is true, since everything/large majority of examples to-date have pointed towards it. I'll say it again... You CAN NOT prove an -absolute- positive OR negative. It's a widely agreed on fact, 'proof' is just a word of convenience, rationalisation, and simplicity, it doesn't actually mean it has been proven, beyond any possible doubt, that it is an absolute -proof-

Is the statement "The number of gods is zero" (atheism) any more or less absolute than "The number of gods is one" (monotheism)? Or for that matter "The number of gods is greater than 1" (polytheism)?

how can religious people claim that there is a god with out absolute knowledge?? it just depends on what you believe

As an atheist I say "I don't believe there is a god or gods." I would change my mind if strong evidence of a god turned up - but so far that has not happened. The question can, of course, be turned on its head: How can christians make the absolute statements "God exists. He is the judeo-christian god. He is a 'he'. Jesus is his son. His heaven is the only heaven. His way is the only way." etc. without absolute knowledge? In reality their statements require a hell of a lot more evidence/back-up that the atheist position!

I just look at those who claim there absolutely is not, and I say, "The absence of proof is not the same as proof of absence."

I would suggest "everything that we know and have learnt about our existance would leave one to believe a God does not exist" is a more accurate statement. How can a Theist claim God does exist without absolute knowledge?

They can make the statement but it holds about as much water to me as me declaring His existence does to them!

What is an "absolute statement" and how is it different from a non-absolute statement? . Same q for "absolute knowledge"? . Have "atheists" in fact made this statement?

how can christians say that god does exist without absolute knowledge? how can you say that the flying spaghetti monster doesnt exist? do you have absolute proof it doesnt? if you dont have proof it doesnt exist, why dont you worship it and give it 10% of your earnings?

When you understand why you do not accept the possibility of all of the other gods, you'll understand why I dismiss yours.

But we don't. Not me, at least.

"how"? by denying basic logic. it is impossible. i cant prove there is no gold in the klondike unless i go through every last atom in the klondike. i can easily prove there is by finding even the smallest bit of gold, but not so with proving there is none. when it comes to proving God doesnt exist, you would have to turn over every single subatomic particle in the universe to do so. but first you would have to assume God even HAS any mass, which by necessary definition, He cannot. so this would be an impossible venture on many levels. to prove He does exist would be as simple as finding even the smallest bit of evidence. there is an abundance of evidence ranging in fields from biology, logic, physics, sociology, history (prophecies being fulfilled for example) and all manner of other fields of study.. so there is no shortage of evidence. the problem is that by definition, an atheist rejects God. so no evidence will ever be enough. it just will not. try proving the moon landing occurred to one of those conspiracy theory guys.. you will find yourself unable to, simply because they refuse to. or choose any type of denier and try to prove them wrong. you wont be able to lest they open up the ability to listen frankly. but their lack of ability to do this is how they got here in the first place

I don't think anyone can make an absolute statement as to whether god does OR doesn't exist. That's just the point no one can prove or disprove it but I think there's more evidence to support critical thinking and conclude that a god or at least the god that organized religions claim to be god exists. as a side note I think a lot of people get pigeonholed into being called athiests when they say they don't believe in God. I myself think there might be something, some higher power but I think we as a species haven't even begun to describe or fathom what it is or understand it and I seriously doubt any "holy" books have it pegged.

Nobody has absolute knowledge. If a person had to know everything about everything before they were allowed to hold an opinion, we'd never get anything done!

Quite simply actually. We make the same type of absolute statement that the faithful make. Except we add the word "not." What's so hard to figure out? You do it all the time. Why can't we?

Can theists make the opposite assertion?! ;-)

But for the insane who make the absolute statement that god exists, Atheists wouldn't have to counter-claim that he/she/it doesn't

watch hitchhikers guide to the galaxy when the part of man talking to god and it will all make sense

The astute knows in his heart there is no god

What if it is all God/Goddess .. what if each particle of the cosmos is an expression of the inteligence of all that is ... that ends the silly dogma of all of the worlds religions .. Then each of us is seen as an aspect of the all (Divine) simply viewing itself from a different perspective .. makes the entire religious debate and associated violence look silly really ...

I can't speak for all atheists, so I will speak for myself. - Looking at the universe, I see no proof or need for this amazingly complex entity called god. The probability of a god existing is quite low, so while I cannot say he does not exist with absolute certainty, I am not going to live my life believing in god any more than I am going to walk around afraid of meteors falling on my head. Neither one is likely enough to warrent my continued concern and I will not waste my life believing in either one.

How can anyone make an absolute statement (the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist) without absolute knowledge? +5

The only way anyone will ever be able to say with 100% certainty is to die all the way DEAD, not "near death, but run over by a damned steam roller dead then hop right up in front of EVERYONE, say at the superbowl or the world cup on TV while most of the world is watching then get up all flattened bloody raw like, crushed bones and all then say, "Yes, X is true.. Been there, done it! Since NOBODY will EVER do that the only way to find out is of course to be DEAD and come back to life. For you Christinsanities out there hell bent on trying this out I suggest the following, http://i894.photobucket.com/albums/ac150/mram50/bibleloophole.png ...It gives you at least a chance for a bible loophole. ;)

The same way Christians/Muslims/any other religion can make an absolute statement (Everyone else's gods don't exist) without absolute knowledge. How many religious people can honestly answer that they have read the other texts as thoroughly and open-mindedly as they have their own?

By the simple application of Occam's Razor.

The same way most of humanity can say without absolute knowledge that: the Greco / Roman gods don't exists. Never never Land doesn't exist. the fairy godmother doesn't exist. Santa doesn't exist. Lord Thlorgon of Xutlakxs 47 doesn't exist. etc... etc... and so forth. +5

Logically we cannot. And most of us don't. What we (or at least I) say is the the probability of an anthropomorphic god such as described by existing religions is so minuscule that it is not worth considering. Much the same as your view of the risk of being killed by a meteor. It actually have happened in recorded history, but we do not give it a thought as we walk out the door. The risk is so small it is a waste of time considering it, much less being afraid of it. regards JakobA

umm history... look it up. tell me if there a human named jesus. its simple history dont have the knowledge of a jesus so how would anybody else have knowlede he did exsit.

How can cristians prove them wrong without the same thing? Atheists have their opinion and catholics have theirs. Both need to respect eachother

They use the same faith of religious ppl; bet their life on something that they cannot be 100% certain of.

How can believers make an absolute statement that God does exist without absolute knowledge?

We Atheists ask the same questions about Theists..and frankly there's no good answer for either of us - as nobody has ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE of anything in this universe.... You just have to have "faith" baby - and the belief that your side is the right one. I'm right of course - there is no God - but your opinions may differ from mine - and that's cool with me.