Now that I think of it I guess that would be considered "agnostic atheist" to him then. It's asinine that apparently it "would not be fine" to him unless you append with that qualifier though.
Oh. Sorry, did not really mean to upset you or anyone else with what I said. It's just a minor bugbear I have when people argue religion.
My point was that agnosticism and atheism isn't mutually exclusive. I have nothing against people who call themselves agnostics, since we usually share the same belief, and I'm also an agnostic.
No, an agnostic does not know, and in fact believes it is impossible to know, thus will never answer that question yes or no. The answer is "It is impossible to know".
Did I say differently? Although with an added caveat that there are agnostics who are of the opinion that at this point in time it is impossible to know, but might be possible in the future.
This however has little to do with what a person believes, since I know plenty of people who say that they believe in god, but they don't have any actual knowledge if he really exists or not. It's a matter of faith. These people are agnostic theists.
Whether they answer my question or not, I have trouble wrapping my head around on how someone can neither believe or not believe. And yes, I agree that for the moment it is impossible to know.
Basically, if someone is asked the question "Do you believe in god/gods?" and he can't answer yes, then he does not believe. Or am I being dumb in thinking this? How is it impossible to know what you yourself believe?
And sorry if I completely derailed this very civil discussion on religion with semantics.
I try my best to follow Bertrand Russell's message, so if you feel offended by what I say, I can only apologize.