Agnosticism...

Well, I'm not sure that most god concepts are actually internally contradictory. A whole lot of them are simply non-falsifiable unscientific concepts (i.e. the deist god) or are poorly defined absurd gibberish that don't really even qualify as concepts (i.e. "god is that for which nothing greater can be imagined."). These can be said not to exist for reasons other than inherent contradiction--existence simply doesn't apply to them in any scientific sense.

Then you have your "god is nature" types of god concepts which make god at best trivial and uninteresting; labeling it "god" adds nothing at all to the wonder or understanding of nature except to confuse people because of equivocation over various concepts of god. People start attributing aspects of other concepts of god to nature, and that's where you get problems.

I also think it's a good idea to differentiate between concepts of gods and descriptions of specific gods. The inherent contradictions of the biblical god are problems of description, not problems of defining concepts. The judeo-christian concept of god includes gods other than Jehovah--otherwise, for example, the commandment to have no other gods doesn't parse as an idea--and largely comes down to being any object or entity, real or supernatural, to whom prayers or absolute loyalty are offered. The inherent contradictions that render Jehovah a 100% impossibility lie in the description of the specific god Jehovah--i.e. omnipotent and omniscient, loving eternal torturer, etc.--and not in the underlying concept of god.

Because all religions are amalgams of like-minded souls, and they design their God to fit their own notions of How Things Work.

Yes, um, Maggie, you need to put your sarcasm detector on.....

It's always cute when atheists say 'No, you can't be one of them, you are really one of us!'
Even after being told fifty times that no, that's not the way we see it, the entire point is we think surety on this issue is moot when we ourselves have no evidence of it one way or the other.

Just leave your flyers at the doors guys, and don't bother me while I'm walking through the airport.

And once again, no surety is required to be an atheist.

I think the main practical difference here is the wish not to be considered militant about your non-belief.

Essentially what I said, but I keep getting straw-manned anyway.

Incorrect.
See post 19 again.

I do, but see no compelling reason whatever to suppose the various ineffable Gods put forward by Deists, as they would have no impact on my life, or indeed, the physical world in any way that mattered.

Do divine beings exist, yes or no?

If you say yes, there's one, you are a monotheist
If you say yes there are many you are a polytheist.
If you say no you are an atheist.
If you say I'm not sure you are an agnostic.

The fact that the later category most often does not observe religious rituals doesn't mean that they are atheists.

And why should tone even matter?

Suppose a world where there was a cult that claimed 2+2=cake.

Wouldn't the 2+2=4 people start to get a bit huffy after awhile?

Wouldn't they seem "militant", in their "rigidity", to the cake people?

And wouldn't that be um, just too fucking bad?

Methodist with CoE sympathies here. Was not aware you and I were on a first-name basis.

And that's just a false dichotomy.

You're still compelled to try to put God in a box.

Then piss off with your "you're really atheists" spiel and save your energies for the Superior Intellects. Yanno, live and let live? Or this:

Couldn't have put it better myself. Bookmarked for future use. Maybe if we just keep repeating it it'll get through their thick skulls...

No, the claim is that atheism is another dogma.

God is Old Yeller.
Pull the trigger.
Do it.
Dooo eeet!

Does Divine the performer count?

And do electronic recordings and cultural memory count as "exist"?

Then, sure.

And that's the difference between an atheist and an agnostic - because at the end of the day you say there isn't a god, however you get there.

I say I'm not sure if there's a god, even though I'm leaning a lot stronger to not than is, but I can't rule out any number of other potentialities for my own convictions.

I do disagree with the conceit about the tooth fairy. Not because of special pleading, but because at the end of the day I know exactly where the quarter came from.

At the end of the day I may believe in the Big Bang (regardless of having absolutely no personal evidence on the matter, because I believe the experts, who mostly agree on that though still argue about it), but the whole 'springing out of nothing' isn't sufficiently explained.

So call me a superstitionist for conceding the limits of both my and humanity's knowledge, but at the end of the day I can't say yes and I can't say no.

Still confusing God and religion.

So you're actually agnostic rather than atheist?

A claim that's also incorrect.

No, I'm perfectly in line with "atheism in the broad sense" in your first quote.

"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man." - Albert Einstein

So you would be open to changing your position under the right circumstances?

Otherwise you're just adhering to the gospel of Dawkins...

I'm open to actual evidence. And that's the same as Dawkins.

Well, I guess he's found out if he was right or wrong now...

Richard Dawkins is not dead. You must be referring to Christopher Hitchens.

Indeed, Richard Dawkins is alive and well and banging Romana II.

Oops.
Ah well...
He's dead and doesn't matter, whoever he is.

Perhaps you don't know what dogma means. Unbending, unreasoning adherence to an unprovable belief = dogma.

An atheist can only find out if he's wrong. If he's right, he'll never know.