The greatest atheist in history

[Kamietsu]

Did anyone say George Carlin yet? He was atheist, I believe. But I don't pay much attention to people's religion.

[icecoldbro]

me?

[QuantumT]

CARL SAGAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He was agnostic as far as I know. He was a great person though.

Terry Pratchett is my favorite writer (and maybe the greatest person in history :3). I didn't even know that he used to be an atheist. Even if he still was one, I'd probably still like him.

The first name that comes to me when I hear "the greatest atheist" is Richard Dawkins.

He was a self claimed agnostic, but only in the sense that he couldn't claim with 100% certainty that god didn't exist. If this is enough to make him agnostic, then it also classifies Dawkins, and just about every other atheist, as agnostics.

[Chironex]

CARL SAGAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He was agnostic as far as I know. He was a great person though.

Terry Pratchett is my favorite writer (and maybe the greatest person in history :3). I didn't even know that he used to be an atheist. Even if he still was one, I'd probably still like him.

The first name that comes to me when I hear "the greatest atheist" is Richard Dawkins.

He was a self claimed agnostic, but only in the sense that he couldn't claim with 100% certainty that god didn't exist. If this is enough to make him agnostic, then it also classifies Dawkins, and just about every other atheist, as agnostics.

Sagan claimed to be an agnostic. Dawkins claims to be an atheist. A militant atheist in fact.

I think Sagan was a caliber of intellect who could make difference between atheist and agnostic, and he could decide what he was. And you think you are in the position to override his own statements about himself? :3

[Daxx]

Einstein. Fantastic bloke, often misquoted.

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

[Chironex]

Einstein. Fantastic bloke, often misquoted.

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

Question!

If someone believes in an impersonal God, is he considered an atheist? Irrespectively of Einstein. In general.

[QuantumT]

Sagan claimed to be an agnostic. Dawkins claims to be an atheist. A militant atheist in fact.

I think Sagan was a caliber of intellect who could make difference between atheist and agnostic, and he could decide what he was. And you think you are in the position to override his own statements about himself? :3

My point is that it's only by a difference in definition of agnostic and atheist that they are categorized differently. If Dawkins used Sagan's definition, Dawkins would be agnostic. If Sagan used Dawkins's definition, Sagan would be atheist.

I'm not saying that either person's definition is wrong, just different. It's just important to remember that they are in fact using different definitions.

Einstein. Fantastic bloke, often misquoted.

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

Question!

If someone believes in an impersonal God, is he considered an atheist? Irrespectively of Einstein. In general.

There's some debate whether pantheism is just a form of atheism or not. I'd say that it really depends on the particular form that it takes. If it's just a grand reverence and respect for nature and the universe, I'd call it atheism. However, if things like the earth and the universe have some sort or spirit or consciousness attached to them, then I wouldn't call it atheism.

As far as Einstein goes, I think he would be classified as an atheist using my definition. 

[Chironex]

Sagan claimed to be an agnostic. Dawkins claims to be an atheist. A militant atheist in fact.

I think Sagan was a caliber of intellect who could make difference between atheist and agnostic, and he could decide what he was. And you think you are in the position to override his own statements about himself? :3

My point is that it's only by a difference in definition of agnostic and atheist that they are categorized differently. If Dawkins used Sagan's definition, Dawkins would be agnostic. If Sagan used Dawkins's definition, Sagan would be atheist.

I'm not saying that either person's definition is wrong, just different. It's just important to remember that they are in fact using different definitions.

I don't know about definitions, but they have/had totally different views. Sagan said he doesn't know. Dawkins seems to be pretty much certain.

*EDIT* I read some debates some time ago about definitions of "atheist" and "agnostic".
I would say an atheist denies the possibility of the existence of a god, an agnostic does not belive but also does not deny. The various definiotions made the line between them blurry. I don't get it why is there a need to make things complicated. I'd think it's much easier to talk about them if they are clearly separated. They are separate things, they shouldn't be defined in a way where you can mix them up. 

[nerd1]

i think the greatest atheist was the guy who wrote the golden compass

[johannhowitzer]

I tend to have less respect for Dawkins for a few reasons... he seems to like the stage too much, he's a bit of a fundamentalist as far as atheists go, and he has a comical tendency to talk himself into corners.

Echo mention of Einstein.  Plus he was portrayed by Walter Matthau, how can you go wrong with that?

[Chironex]

I tend to have less respect for Dawkins for a few reasons... he seems to like the stage too much, he's a bit of a fundamentalist as far as atheists go, and he has a comical tendency to talk himself into corners.

Echo mention of Einstein.  Plus he was portrayed by Walter Matthau, how can you go wrong with that?

Personally I don't like Dawkins either. In my opinion, everyone who is 100% sure in their own right can only be wrong. I just felt he should be mentioned in this topic. 

[QuantumT]

I would say an atheist denies the possibility of the existence of a god, an agnostic does not belive but also does not deny. The various definiotions made the line between them blurry. I don't get it why is there a need to make things complicated. I'd think it's much easier to talk about them if they are clearly separated. They are separate things, they shouldn't be defined in a way where you can mix them up. 

You can talk about them like they're clearly separated, but the fact is that they aren't.

Personally I don't like Dawkins either. In my opinion, everyone who is 100% sure in their own right can only be wrong. I just felt he should be mentioned in this topic. 

I count myself in category 6
-Richard Dawkins

Where 6 represents:

Very low probability [of God existing], but short of zero. De facto atheist. “I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.”

??