Del,
The dictionary stresses the difference as the openness to God as one of the possibilities. The American Atheists atheists.org say that there is nothing but the material. As a person who deals with physics and optics, this is a rather firm statement as opposed to dictionary.com 's definition of "agnostic" as One who believes that there can be no proof of the existence of God but does not deny the possibility that God exists.
One who is a scientist, IMO, can not be anything other than agnostic. Only a zealot would be a hard-boiled atheist to the point of being anti-religious. I've met some, but on average, people who claim to be atheist are more often agnostic.
It is a fine point, but on a thread called "Should God be replaced?" it is important to have one's ducks in a row so people know where you're coming from. That is not to say that atheists are not welcome, but rather the absolute atheist is on thin ice when making absolute arguments for the negative existence of something.
It is my impression that many people here are open to odd ideas and the exploration of the ragged edges of reason and philosophy. I can't imagine anyone here rejecting an idea because it involves God, or the lack of God. But because there aren't many true believers that can tolerate questions of fundamental beliefs, I prefer to call the people here "truth seekers".
It is more important to question and discover where various philosophies break down. Even Logic, as a philosophy, becomes unprovable according to Godel. So, we need to tread lightly when it comes to asserting things strongly because that is probably an invitation to discussion. :) |
