Can anyone say anything with 100% certainty?
If not, does that mean there is no such thing as an atheist?
If no, how should we define atheism? Should all non-theists be called agnostics?
Yes, Greg, one can say something with 100% certainty: scientific laws, E=MC2, F=MA, mathematical equations and their solutions, chemical formulas, the Periodic table, the composition of water= H2O, and an incredible host of other "FACTS", and many other facts, not necessarily scientific.
To many true atheists, an agnostic is one who does not have the conviction of his beliefs.
It would be fallacious to say that there is no such thing as an atheist.
Atheism has multiple definitions. The one I lean on is:
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
That is - DISBELIEF - lack of belief.
Now me, I take it a bit further, in that I assert that there are NO gods whatsoever. A radical statement? Maybe ... and some would say I can't prove my point. To that I say, fine - can't prove that there are no fairies, unicorns or left-handed zindlefingers, either. The funny thing is that I don't see people trying to prove or disprove the myths; that's more or less taken as an automatic Because Of The Lack Of Evidence. Yet for some odd reason, the concept of god still gets a workout.
My attitude is simple: the theists are the ones making the positive claim that there is a god. Therefore they can also be the ones who back up said claim. And as has been pointed out on A|N multiple times:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
-- Carl Sagan
John, my response is the same as Loren Miller's.
Atheism does NOT say there is no proof. It means exactly this: no belief in gods (& by inference, their supernatural-ness).
Most atheist agree there is no proof, but many of strict rational-thinking (ex., scientists) would say that you can't prove a negative. However, I read Skeptic, Skeptical Inquirer, Free Inquiry, and various other rational-thinking journals, including Scientific American, Nature, & Science, among others. In one of more of these, I have read of arguments that you CAN prove a negative, which thinking is then applied to religion. I'd have to do a search to find the exact publication & article, but I think it was in one of the Skeptic journals.
Stalin was an Atheist so was Hitler and the rulers of China for centuries. Atheism can kill as much as someone who pretends to be a Christian.
John, Stalin was about power far more than atheism, and Hitler, if he wasn't a catholic, used the language of christianity to justify a tremendous amount of his action, and that language can be found in Mein Kampf, never mind multiple speeches of his.
Then, too, as I have cited multiple times, there is the matter of the belt buckles worn by Nazi soldiers and the phrase thereon:
GOTT MIT UNS - literally "god with us"
That said, I defy you to name one person or movement that killed or did harm Purely In The Name of Atheism.
To blame Hitlers actions because of religion is not truthful as everyone reasonable person will admit.
Hitler could not have believed in God because everyone knows murder is wrong.
Stalin killed in the name of atheism He said religion is bad for the state. The point is you cannot blame God for evil and you cannot blame all religion for bad religion and people killing in the name of religion to try to get people to believe they have a good cause.
To do either would be unreasonable, and admit of being influenced by an agenda.
I've had enough...
I'm going to spell it out for you so that there is no misunderstanding. This is a non-believers-ONLY site, and to be blunt, you're not welcome here. When you signed on to A|N, there was an explicit question to prospective members, asking if they were non-believers, and only those who answered in the affirmative were allowed to join. About all I can guess is that you lied in answering that question, so that you could fake your way on here. If you thought that a simple mendacity would allow you to bring your evangel here without challenge, you are badly mistaken.
As for your activity here, all I see is the rote noise derived from creationist websites or apologist's screeds, which I've already seen too many times to be impressed with, never mind the properly founded dismissals for. Nothing you've submitted here is new, John; indeed, I suspect none of it was even originally written by you, and I would seriously doubt that there is a single atheist on this site who would be remotely moved or even mildly interested in it.
That said, I have a recommendation for you: LEAVE. Delete your account and find some place else to attempt to proselytize. You can either do that or watch as your account is deleted for you and your IP address blocked against further intrusions.
Be advised that you have been reported to A|N system administration.
"I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy." (JER 13:14) "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling."
John Johnson, you are a real theistic Loon!
Hitler and Stalin both killed for the same reason, Psychosis, it had nothing really to do with religion as such.
Hitler had his knowledge of Catholicism and it's persecution of Jews for over a thousand years and used it to his advantage, as he stated to the Catholic church in his meeting, he was just continuing their crusade against the Jews, so he couldn't understand why they didn't assist him, instead of opposing him.
Stalin even executed his fellow Atheists, because his problem was extreme psychotic megalomania. The atheism was just a fad he applied to help his megalomania, it was not the source of his derangement, it was just a tool, the psychotic twit made use of.
Atheism is completely benign.
Modern Atheism proves this, you will never see an Atheist suicide bomber or mass murderer coming from the midst of new Atheism.
Yet you will find them coming from the Islamic and Christian ranks.
Why would I blame something that doesn't exist for ANYTHING? That would be foolish and useless.
On the other hand ... blaming those who use such constructs for their own purposes is most appropriate, whether I blame Adolf Hitler or the RC church for their parallel depredations against the Jews. And it is worth noting that the former's tirade derived in no small part from the latter!
But you are gone and cannot answer ... and would have no cogent answer were you here anyway ... which is just as well.