An atheist being defined as a person who doesn't believe in the existence of God.
You're operating off a bum definition. Atheists deny the existence of god. She does not. Agnostics don't know. Could be a god, could be not. No way to know in this life. One actively denies, the other is disinterested, indifferent, ambivalent, unknowing, or in flux.
She and I are a lot closer to this than you are and the distinction is meaningful to us. We and others have spent endless hours working through the categories. She and I are both agnostics. She objects to being called an atheist. I don't call myself an atheist but am not bothered being lumped in with them. Close enough for most purposes.
The only way (logically) to reject what Christ said, i.e. his doctrine, is to deny his existence which then means one is denying the existence of God....
I understand your Christian-centric perspective but to me the concept of god is broader than that. The Christian god is just one flavor among many. So not accepting Christ is not the same as not believing in god. Only for Christians is that true.
So rejecting the word of Christ IS the same as rejecting the word of God. Not to the Jewish world, of course, but to Christians.
Exactly. If you can see and make an exception for Jews, why not for agnostics. Christ is no more of a factor for us than for the Jews. It's either god or no god.
In terms of logic, I mean.
In terms of logic, agnosticism is the obvious choice. Believers claim to know that there is a god. Atheists claim to know that there isn't one. Agnostics recognize that there's no way to know. |
