@silvereyes [en.m.wikipedia.org]

@cmadler I agree, I have said similar statements, that said, I don't get hung up on what you call yourself.

I would love to talk to an agnostic theist. I can't understand the notion of not knowing and yet believing.

@cmadler You said "Agnostic is about knowledge, atheist is about belief". No. They are BOTH about BELIEF. They both require the belief that "God" or "Allah" is a meaningful word. See my post above: "Unless you can show that "God" is a meaningful word, you can't use it meaningfully in a sentence either to say "God exists", "God doesn't exist" or "God may or may not exist".

@EdwinMcCravy I don't understand your argument. The term "God", capitalized and with no descriptors, is commonly understood to mean the Abrahamic god.

@cmadler I don't know how to even suspect in the least, let alone believe, that there is any possible mental image of anything to call "the Abrahamic god". I contend that if I can only speak or write the sequence of 3 words "the Abrahamic god", but cannot conjure up in my head any possible image of anything that sequence of words could stand for, then I cannot know of anything I could be talking or writing about when I speak or write that sequence. If you claim to be able to have a mental imagine anything that "the Abrahamic god" could refer to, then please describe the mental image to me so that I may be able to have it too. Without a mental image for some row of alphabet letters to refer to, all I can know of is the row of alphabet letters.

@EdwinMcCravy There are plenty of non-physical concepts for which no mental image (or no accurate mental image) exists. What is your mental image for "infinity"? What about "imaginary"? What about "vacuum" (as in an absence of physical material)? What about "noun"? For that matter, what about "mental image"?

@cmadler You ask "what is my mental image for 'infinity'?  Let's analyze the term.  The prefix "in-" on infinity means "not". the "fin" is like the "fin" of "finish".  "Infinity" means "something that is never finished, or 'all there'.  So "infinity" is meaningless because it means "all of what is never all there".  Yes, "infinity" is meaningless.  Contrary to popular belief, mathematicians never speak "of infinity".  We only say "as x approaches infinity", which only means "as the quantity x grow larger and larger".  We don't define 1÷ 0 "one divided by zero".   

You want to talk about our awareness of bodily activities as if they are not something physical.  But they all are.  We all agree that we imagine things.  Scientists have discovered that  neurons in our brains behave a certain way, and when they do, we can detect the results of their activity, and label our experience "imagining".  

Don't you imagine things?  Of course you do.  Everybody does.   What about "imaginary"?  That's a word we use for things we can imagine in our heads.  I can close my eyes and imagine unicorns and mermaids galore.  You can too.  So you know very well what I'm talking about.  Can you describe feeling pain?  No, but you know when you feel pain.  Everybody knows about having pain.  When we say "we have pain", our nerves are behaving a certain way that makes us feel uncomfortable.  It's an activity going on within our body that we are detecting.  

But I have no idea what you are claiming to imagine when you claim to imagine something for the row of words "God, the infinite incorporeal spirit that created the universe".  So I don't how to believe that you are imagining anything for that row of words to mean.  It looks to me like you're just speaking them or writing them and believing (on faith, what else?) that they refer to something.  

What about "vacuum"?   We just use the word "vacuum" to speak of something that does not contain any air or gas.. What about nouns?  Those are words in a language that stand for things.  Nouns are part of a language that humans have invented. A mental image is what we say we have when our neurons behave a certain way,  A neuroscientist can tell you about how they behave (move around and vibrate).  

@traceyanarchist that was all over the place. I am not sure what kind of emphasis you tried to give in the use of uppercase letters, but the idea is very wacky. Knowledge is, traditionally, a subset of belief. The opposite of knowledge is ignorance, and the opposite of belief is... well, disbelief or negation. Let me give you a fairly simple example of what I mean:

John did not count the number of words in his dictionary. However, he believes the number of words is even. Robert claims to have received revelation from his god, Lexicon, and believes the number is odd.

I can accept the fact that both John and Robert believe what they claim to believe. I understand why Robert thinks he is justified in holding his belief, though I'd disagree with him on that. But I do not understand how John can jump from not having any justification to believing something. It is not that complicated.

p.s.: just to make sure I am not saying BS, I made a quick stop at Wikipedia: "Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty.". Even the Venn diagram shows knowledge as a subset of belief.

@cmadler "Non-physical concept?" I don't know what that means. Please educate me. Maybe give me some examples of whatever you think "non-physical concept" means.

@traceyanarchist so Wikipedia is wrong because you say so. Wonderful. I'm glad I have up on this site

@hlfsousa I'd categorize my mother as an agnostic theist. She believes there is a god, but is also convinced that all the religions are wrong and that humans are unlikely to ever know the true nature of god. shrug Worked out for me, never had to go to church growing up and she knows and accepts that i'm a full atheist.

Exactly Paula. My question, and I'll ask it again, is this: Why do atheists and agnostics criticize me for my DISBELIEF that "God" is a meaningful word?

@EdwinMcCravy Paula? If you're asking me, then I can't I can't explain to you what I think others are thinking... If you're asking me to do that, then you should be able to do it too and your question is pointless.

@Paul628 You and I cannot know for sure what concepts others have, but we can know for sure whether we know of any reason to believe that "God" and "Allah" are any different from the rows of alphabet letters "Ziggle", "Floof" and "Driffit", which I just made up, as far as having any meaning.

Paul628 And how can anyone possibly argue with that?

@EdwinMcCravy To me, when someone describes their god in the most common generic way I've usually heard... omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omnipresent, omniscient, they might as well be describing the Easter bunny to me. I see no reason to believe in either one.

@Paul628 You're trying to "compare the incomparable". You're trying to compare the meaningLESS capitalized row of letters "God" with the very meaningFUL term "Easter Bunny". It's easy to imagine the Easter Bunny, which is what the term "Easter Bunny" refers to, but it's impossible to imagine anything that the row of three alphabet letters "God" could stand for. .

@EdwinMcCravy I'm comparing two fantasies.

@Paul628 What fantasy do you think theists refer to when they say "God"? I am unable to imagine any fantasy they are referring to when they say "God"? If you know of a fantasy labeled "God", then please, please, tell me how to have a concept of it, because I do not know how to..

@EdwinMcCravy ^^^ Go up three replies.

@Paul628 I don't know which reply is "three up", nor am I able to conjure up a concept in my head of anything, fantasy or whatever, Christians are talking about when they utter the sound or write the row of three alphabet letters "God", written with capital "G". (not with little "g", like so many atheists write instead of "God" ). Since I can't have a concept of anything labeled "God" that Christians believe in and atheists and agnostics claim to disbelieve in, I cannot be a theist, atheist or agnostic.

@EdwinMcCravy "Go up three replies" means go up to the reply I posted three replies up from there. There are arrows pointing the way ^^^ Label yourself however you want. I'm not trying to do it.

@AMGT I've called many things... Paula is a first.

@Paul628 But I have a very vivid mental concept of the Easter Bunny, just as I do for Santa Claus. Therefore the terms "Easter Bunny" and "Santa Claus" are meaningful, for I have vivid mental concepts of them both. 'Meaningfulness' has nothing to do with 'existence', for we all have vivid images of mermaids and unicorns, neither of which exist. Now if you claim to have any mental concept of something nonexistent labeled "God" or "Allah", then please describe it for me so that I will be able to have it too. Thanks. But I claim that "God" and "Allah" are NOT like "mermaid" and "unicorn", which refer to the imaginable, but are like "Zipple" and "Smoofage", which I just made up, and which refer to nothing at all.

@EdwinMcCravy Describe for me the mental images you have for non-existent things like the Easter Bunny, Santa, Mermaid, or a Unicorn.

I can say with confidence that your descriptions will not be identical to mine. Similar but not identical.

Now if I describe the image I have of god I picture an old man with a white beard, white hair and white robes standing on a cloud in heaven.

Allah, I picture someone with dark skin wearing robes who looks similar to Osama Bin Laden or maybe even Jeebus.

Now you have mental images of God or Allah similar to mine but not identical.

@Paul628 You say "Describe for me the mental images you have for non-existent things like the Easter Bunny, Santa, Mermaid, or a Unicorn". The Easter Bunny is a big rabbit. Santa Claus is a big fat man in a red suit with a white beard and a pointed cap. It's easy to imagine such things. Did you see the movie "Splash"? That was a mermaid Darryl Hannah played. You can easily imagine what you saw in that picture. That was the concept of a mermaid. You are talking about finite things -- animals. They are easy to have a mental concept of. We can imagine all sorts of nonexistent animals. If I could draw on here I'd draw them for you. I can find pictures of all these things on the Internet. Is that what you want me to do? All Santas look very similar to the men we see in shopping malls at Christmas time.. All look very similar. But there is no way to have a concept of anything labeled "God, the omnipresent infinite incorporeal spirit that created the universe". You can't even make sense when you say "created the universe" because you can only define the word "created" in terms of one part of the already existing universe creating another part of the already existing universe. So when you stick the word "universe" with "create", you are constructing a row of words that sound like it refers to something but it doesn't. So don't be fooled into thinking it does. If you believe you are able to conjure up a concept in your head for "creator of the universe" to refer to, then why not explain it to me so I can have that concept too? I can easily explain the concept of the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, a unicorn and a mermaid. And while you're at it, explain how the verb "create" can be defined without speaking of anything in the universe. You can't and you know you can't. So why not just admit that you can't? . .

@EdwinMcCravy "Also explain how "create" can be defined without speaking of anything in the universe. You can't and you know you can't. So why not just admit that you can't?"

I ate a big dinner and created a big shit later. (Yes I know I shit inside the universe. Give it rest already.)

Surely you have been able to imagine something similar to one of these images and can summon it up in your head from memory.
I couldn't find an image of Allah because it is considered blasphemy and I really didn't care enough to keep searching, so you'll need to use your very limited imagination.

This is the last time I'm going to respond to this circular argument since it is going nowhere and I think you're only keeping it alive because you like to quibble over meaningless bullshit.

I haven't felt the need to block anyone since I signed up here, but you could be #1.

@Paul628 "I ate a big dinner and created a big shit later. (Yes I know I shit inside the universe. Give it rest already.)"

Right, a part of the universe, YOU, created another part of the universe, the SHIT. But if you say that one part of the universe creates another part of the universe, and then you are calling a PART of the universe "THE WHOLE UNIVERSE", then you aren't making a lick of sense. So realize it.

Does atheism assert a belief though? It may b getting into the strong/weak atheist position, but In my experience the difference between an atheist and a non theist is disbelief. Wile an atheist would say there is no reason to believe that's true, a non theist would say that's not true. And these definitions definitely seem to fit the prefixes more appropriately.

@silvereyes Religious texts are certainly unreasonable. That you can't outright invalidate them seems to be the point. However you can't quantify or verify god/supernatural. If you can't quantify or verify, you can't reasonably expect to ask a question and get a scientific answer.

I ignore the subject(s) of god/religion outside a single premise. Per the Thomas Theorem, 'what is perceived as real is real in its consequences'. In other words god/religion are relevant only because some people take them into account when making important decisions. So it becomes necessary to understand how some people operate without evidence to guide their actions.

@PaulRecomStop Yes theism and atheism explicitly rely on belief in the exact same way. One accepts the truth claim god exists without evidence. The other accepts the truth claim god doesn't exist without evidence.

As stated above I consider both potentially mentally ill because they make and accept a truth claim without evidence. That said I consider the latter the lesser evil as they are less likely to be overtly hostile to someone like me pointing out the obvious fallacy in their argument.

@mymysticcrow I've never met an atheist with the position that God doesn't exist without evidence. I think the appropriate way to word it would be their is no reason to be convinced a god exists without evidence. And with that more reasonable wording I don't see a burden of proof.

@mymysticcrow the difference is, your asserting atheists believe there is no god( the without evidence comment is inconsequential) I'm asserting atheists aren't convinced o f a God. Once again, aheist: prefix "a" root word theist, meaning not theist. Compare to asymmetrical. A hard atheist position, or a non theist position may be asserting no god exists, but I think with your understanding of knowledge vs belief, this could be the only reasonable way to interpret atheism and theism

@mymysticcrow the soft atheist position would be to take no stance on the matter or to say I don't know. The only time I've really seen people confuse this is when the perceive agnosticism with this position, but your not doing that. I'm not sure where your falling off trtack honestly. The important thing to know is that atheists do not have a burden of proof, no claim is being made. Null hypothesis, n vs not n. A God exists, n or not n(appropriate thought process). A God exists, a God does not exist, n vs c(fallacious)

@mymysticcrow and i hate to keep commenting lol but what im saying is almost completely pulled from daekins or dennet.... its really confusing me how youve put this together but still arent perceiving the difference between theist, atheist, nontheist/antitheist/hard atheism. It's sometimes hard for people to understand, but it's an important part of understanding the difference between atheism and agnosticism, and you understand that. I feel like you've stated clearly and correctly the scales you were talking about it missed something while learning them. Let's talk about a different dawkins scale. He makes a scale of atheism from 1 to 7, and calls himself a 6.9 because he won't say there is no god(because that would adopt a burden of proof). And he refers to a 7 as(if I remember right) a non theist. And his time after time stated position, as an atheist, is "there is no reason to believe in a God" and possibly "I live my life with belief in God the same way I live with belief of unicorns or leprechauns or(the example tha explains this whole position) the flying spaghetti monster. The only reason I want to clarify this, is because its a huge point of unjustified judgement, usually from theists, but after you attempting to prove the insanity of a position you misunderstand, may be also from non believers.

@mymysticcrow and i hate to keep commenting lol but what im saying is almost completely pulled from daekins or dennet.... its really confusing me how youve put this together but still arent perceiving the difference between theist, atheist, nontheist/antitheist/hard atheism. It's sometimes hard for people to understand, but it's an important part of understanding the difference between atheism and agnosticism, and you understand that. I feel like you've stated clearly and correctly the scales you were talking about it missed something while learning them. Let's talk about a different dawkins scale. He makes a scale of atheism from 1 to 7, and calls himself a 6.9 because he won't say there is no god(because that would adopt a burden of proof). And he refers to a 7 as(if I remember right) a non theist. And his time after time stated position, as an atheist, is "there is no reason to believe in a God" and possibly "I live my life with belief in God the same way I live with belief of unicorns or leprechauns or(the example tha explains this whole position) the flying spaghetti monster. The only reason I want to clarify this, is because its a huge point of unjustified judgement, usually from theists, but after you attempting to prove the insanity of a position you misunderstand, may be also from non believers.

@PaulRecomStop Very good. You can partially paraphrase Dawkins. Unfortunately you are focusing on the details and missing the big picture.

For Dawkins, the big picture is summarized as the following 2 scales. 1) What is knowable - gnostic to agnostic. 2) What do you believe - theist to atheist.

I am an extreme agnostic. Evidence is the only form of knowledge that exists. As such I don't consider the 2nd scale valid*. We have no evidence to support the existence or nonexistence of god(s), supernatural, et cetera. Therefore, the 2nd scale is invalid.

• For science to consider a question, it must be quantifiable or verifiable. God is neither.

Point is, if you are theist or atheist, I consider you insane for the exact same reason. You believe something without evidence.

@PaulRecomStop I understand your misgivings. You probably define Theist, Agnostic and Atheist differently from me.

I've had people try to insist I'm a number of different terms that don't quite fit. Here's the short list.

Nontheism - read the debates you'll find that this term is so broad that it is almost meaningless. Technically speaking it includes all terms listed below.

Ignosticism - god/supernatural can't be quantified or verified. So I certainly agree that god/supernatural has no clear meaning. But I would go further to specify that the terms are in fact meaningless outside of social science.

Skepticism - I am a science oriented skeptic so this term somewhat fits. But I have misgivings about the empirical requirement of scientific skepticism due to how much we can't verify via sensory data or any tool we've developed thus far to analyse sensory data that we cannot see for ourselves.

Apatheism - god/supernatural can't be quantified or verified. So I am certainly disinterested in debating this subject.

Atheism - As previously states, I reject belief (or lack of belief) without evidence.

Agnostic is the only term that fits without significant qualification(s) or reservation(s).

@mymysticcrow I wanna start this by say in last night when I posted these I was having a rough night at work so please forgive me if I was condescending at all. It was my situation tha caused it, not stones comments and after reading what I said I think I may have been overbearing!

@mymysticcrow earlier you said about atheism, "one accepts a truth claim that God sent exist" and now youve said "atheism-i reject belief or lack belief". The difference is the null hypothesis. A or not a. This is why I don't think they are 2 separate truth claims, rather 2 sides of the same truth claim. When i say I don't believe in a God, I'm saying "not a" to the theists position of "a". Asserting their is no god would be a separate claim, ie b or not b.

Agreed. Except the label is not very convenient haha. Easier to say atheist and then if people ask why, you talk about how god doesn't have a proper referand and therefore doesn't make sense etc...

@silvereyes It's not lower case "god" that's meaningless. It's upper case "God" that's meaningless. "Zeus" is not meaningless for Zeus was an imaginary god.

@Manestor The word "god" with a small "g: is NOT meaningless. "Zeus" is not meaningless. Zeus was an imaginary god. "Zeus" is like "unicorn", a meaningful word for something nonexistent. It's the word "God" with capital "G" that's meaningless. Why do atheists want to write the meaningful word "god" for the meaningless word "God"? I showed you that the word "creator" can only be learned in terms of the already existing universe. Therefore "Creator of the universe" is meaningless. Thus "God" is meaningless but "god" is meaningful.

"Thus "God" is meaningless" Only if everyone stops talking about him/her

Yes, I learned a long time ago that a room of people can all proclaim a belief in God and yet everyone in that room believes in a somewhat different God, even if everyone in that room claims to believe in the Christian God. But, to admit this is to concede that every believer is, in effect, their own religion.

@Heraclitus You claim "a room of people can all proclaim a belief in God and yet everyone in that room believes in a somewhat different God". Does each say "My God created the universe"? Or do some say "My God did not create the universe"? I claim that if they all said "My God created the universe", then they're all speaking nonsense instead of referring to a concept of anything they could be imagining. If you are able to have a mental concept of anything any of them in the room could be talking about, then please describe that mental concept you claim to be able to have, so I will be able to have that mental concept too. As it is, I am unable to believe that "creator of the universe" can mean anything, since the word "creator" can only be defined in terms of an already existing universe.

@Manestor Why do you misspell the meaningless sound that theists mouth, "God" or "Allah", as "god" with a little "g"? The word "god" with a little "g" is meaningful, but the row of letters "God" with a capital "G" is meaningless. I guess it's because you hold a believe that I am unable to hold -- that theists have coherently defined the row of letters "God" to refer to a god. Why do you believe that?

@Mcflewster People speaking and writing a meaningless sound does not cause the sound to be meaningful.

@EdwinMcCravy

These are words that make no much sense.

For example, Jesus Christ is the hero of the New Testament, where he is described in great detail. While we know little about the historical Jesus, the New Testament Jesus, we know a lot.
We also know that this book with this character has defined the last 2,000 years of our history.

This is enough to make sense to comment, explore, and criticize this hero, who is God for millions of people today.

Or Agal

thank you kindly, @Admin (blush)

@Leutrelle, what?

And R'amen to you!

@Admin Glad you can see that. Most people can't, even though it's very obvious. Atheists and agnostics for some reason can't seem to wrap their heads around it. It's the fourth stand, the stand of theological noncognitivism, which is neither theism, atheism, nor agnosticism. Since "God" cannot be used meaningfully in a sentence, it cannot refer to anything, not even to a deity. Theists, atheists and agnostics all three wrongly assume that "God" and "Allah" are meaningful words.

Not quite sure how your using the term Amen.
Are you using it like a pat on the back, an "I agree" sentiment?

“AMEN: In Egyptian Mythology, the mighty one (god) of life and procreation …later identified with the Sun-god as the supreme deity of Egypt, and was called “Amen-Ra.”

How do believers deceive themselves into thinking adding a "So Be it"(Amen) to the end of prayers will advance their case?
Do they not understand the nature and definition of the very God they claim to be serving?
In the Faith God's will is sacrosanct, all things fall in line with it, and we feeble humans do not understand why.
IF your prayer is in line with God's will, it will be fulfilled, and if it is not, God said No.
Further, if you pray at all, for anything other than Thanks, how are you not being a child crying "Are we There Yet?" in the back seat to a God you believe is eternal, timeless and ever present?
IT would know better than you exactly what you needed all the time before you do, like pestering your mother for dinner while she is cooking.

What truly fails about this Model for God is that it makes God responsible for everything, every crime, every natural disaster, every disease victim, EVERYTHING.
Because a being defined in such a way would have foreseen EVERYTHING before anything began and CHOSE that, and then watches it ALL, like reality TV through ever presence, literally watching every rape and murder, every genocide, every fire which claims victims, every disaster, every disease victim, every victim of starvation
ALWAYS
EVERY SECOND
Having the power to save each and every one with a word
and doing NOTHING.

It convicts your idea of God of a level of depravity we can scarcely conceive, to watch the Holocaust and take no action, through all time . . .

So how are you using that term, Amen? like "Amen brother, I agree?" (where it means in the Christian Dogma "so be it"?)
In that case what is it you want to be?
"Seriously, call yourself whatever you want, friends."--Silvereyes

Labels serve a purpose in communication, if you use the term one way and I in another, and we ASSUME we are using the term in the same manner we will miscommnicate.
THAT is why this always comes up, because we must achieve a meeting of minds on how terms are being used to have an intelligent discourse.

RAmen, may his noodley apendages embrace you.

@Davesnothere If they could realize that their belief is a mishmash of fairy stories from previous religions, they would be free.

Thank you.

Exactly. It can be tedious but otherwise you have no way of knowing if your intent is reaching the other person and vice versa. @TheMiddleWay

@TheMiddleWay however, what if the person has neither of the colors within their viewable range? You may see red, however the other person sees a color not even in your spectrum in place of red. So, your strict and tedious description only applies to you and those like you. Also, how do you strictly and intricately describe or define something that's ultimately unknown? Hence, the reason we're supposed to identify as agnostics and the reason I relate to the definitions and theories of agnosticism.

The meaning(s) of abstractions, concepts, words, et cetera are the central point of every debate. That's why it is so important to clearly define your terms in any academic endeavor. The problem is that to the religious, defining terms is secondary to their inviolable pro-god/supernatural stance. To them anything you say against their version of god/supernatural must be wrong - and by extension you must be an outsider. If you are familiar with ingroup outgroup social dynamics then you already understand how easy it is for these people to purpetrate blatantly evil acts.

@TheMiddleWay That is a super good practice. When asked "do you believe in God" one should first reply with "Well, what do you mean when you say God?" A lot of people will be completely perplexed by this question - as so many have never considered the idea. Their reaction will tell you a lot about where that conversation can go.

@TheMiddleWay Are you talking about gods like Zeus and Thor? They are finite material things (superhumans) that ancient people imagined to exist. They drew pictures and made statues of them that are still around today. These gods didn't exist, but the labeled "Zeus" and "Thor" referred to these imaginable material things. Such things are called "gods" with a small "g". Nobody today believes they exist.

I find myself unable to believe that "God" with a capital "G" or "Allah" with a capital "A" refers to a god or to anything at all. If you believe it does, why do you?

The point is that as an agnostic I see fault in claiming that another's beliefs or ways of viewing the universe are wrong due to the fact it doesn't fit your limited views of the eternal and infinite, because ultimately you yourself may be wrong about something so beyond our limitations of being in our physical plane and beyond our myopic views of all things that are possible to exist --- agnostic thinking.

Think mathematics in terms of permutations and combinations and now think about the permutations and combinations about the eternal and infinite.

In my agnostic thinking, who the F*k knows so to debate and reason about it with our limited and varied capacities defeats the purpose. To add on, the distinction between beliefs and knowledge is ultimately the key as so many have pointed out. An agnostic acknowledges that such things are unknown and may be unknowable as it seems to be agreed upon, but without any restrictions or declarations of beliefs about the unknown. Therefore, it's open ground to believe what you may about the unknown, but realize it's unknown so you may be wrong and then again you may be right. Therefore, an agnostic may have beliefs about a God(s) or anything of the other possibilities, may not believe in such things at all, or doesn't even see the point in thinking about it at all and henceforth that we should remain concrete for it's practical going in the right direction for our survival here on earth not wasting time on the rabbit hole and on things that are possibly wrong; the determining factor is that they realize they may be wrong or they may be right and you may be wrong or you may be right -- who the f@k knows?

I think atheists relate to agnostics, because they hear no God may exist; whereas, an atheist would say - in my way of examining the definitions and dissecting the orientations - no God exist. Two ends of a spectrum saying yes and no; whereas the agnostic says maybe.

My rant only matters to me because of another post where people were trying to say that all agnostics are atheists at the bottom line of things, and this can cause problems and confusion in other people's lives when we think differently no matter how much we try to reason and define and label. In the post, someone's identity of themselves was being questioned based on bias per say (hard to say as well). Otherwise, if we're in different swim lanes, then I remain in my swim lane and hide this swim lane.

@silvereyes I joined this site thinking that I can finally find like-minded individuals to mingle and befriend and be able to discuss openly without lashings and such; however, to my dismay met with the same mindset as theists and atheists.

@silvereyes nothing wrong with any mindset ... just not able to openly express myself

@silvereyes In my agnostic way of thinking, because these things are unknown or may even be unknowable then it works two-fold: to claim something doesn't exist because there's no evidence is just as faulty as claiming something does exist when there's no evidence. This is another reason that I identify as an agnostic. There are very distinct differences, but to truly see (even though we may not know how to fully explain it) these differences is to be an agnostic. An agnostic would see that there was no evidence for microbes, but did that mean it didn't exist. An agnostic recognizes both of these observations. An atheist would, as I would examine it, proclaim that something doesn't exist unless evidence negates otherwise. Moreover, I think atheists relate to agnostics because they don't recognize the other side of the coin; so they think the agnostic thinks the same way as them when they hear unbelief and evidence. So, the atheist takes ownership of this label as well.

@quietStorm more correctly, instead of "maybe" an agnostic would say, "cannot be known."

@johnbogie "cannot be known" implies maybe and maybe implies "I don't really know" ... Error as I see it: taking definitions so literal instead of truly understanding the intuitive rooted meaning, which is another fault (only through my lens) I find with many interpretations (i.e. during bible studies or studies in general). If something is unknown, and if someone conjectures about the unknown, then I would think well maybe it's true or maybe it's false b/c it's unknown. Awareness and the ego also comes to mind, in reference to the phrase "can't see the forest for the trees" and vice versa, the ego is only able to comprehend and relate to self and so for only that which is within it's own viewport or awareness. Anything outside of self is as if it doesn't exists or even perplexing to understand or to relate. However, one who understands that the unknown doesn't necessarily equate to nonexistence, also understands, there's the likelihood (maybe) of anything being true or anything being false. In other words, take for instance any game of chance like hiding a pebble in one hand and asking a bystander to choose the hand containing the pebble, it's unknown to the bystander which hand holds the pebble. The right hand may have the pebble or it may not. The left hand may have the pebble or it may not. Either hands may not have the pebble.

Infinity also creeps in the gene pool of living creatures (or any element for that matter) due to mutation, external stimuli, and whatever else left out of the equation. Therefore, what may be true today, may as very well be false tomorrow (figuratively). More or less, to rely only on our own knowledge, understanding, strict and rigid definitions (excluding the hidden and the unknown) and symbols, and myopic thinking and viewpoints is like walking around with blinders on in the context of the eternal and elusive universe of things. It's like bondage. If it weren't for the curious and the wanderers, those who seek the unknown, then we would probably still walk around with blinders so to speak in regards to discoveries so far.

False. Agnostics are agnostics. Everybody is.

@Storm1752 just curious, why is your opinion better than mine to the point where you can pronounce it false?

Agnostics have opinions. I myself don't believe there's a god. The most strident fundamentalist Christian has his opinions, and HE'S agnostic. Everybody is. Opinions are irrelevant.

@Storm1752 so you won't give me credit for KNOWING there's no god? No doubtful, on the fence, but KNOWING..

@Touched Oh, so you claim you KNOW? Finally! A true atheist! Thank you! However, since it is not possible to rationally KNOW such a thing, sans concrete evidence, it therefore follows you are irrational and deluded. But you ARE an atheist. Congratulations!?

@Storm1752 yes I'm a true atheist.. trust me, I KNOW there's no god... I also know there's no devil and no monagrhomes...

@Touched Thank you. You can SAY that, but you're speaking as would a believer who says he KNOWS there IS a god, with absolutely no evidence to support your contention.Many atheists try to have it both ways, with no credibility. If they ssy they're NOT sure, then they're not an atheist, they're agnostic. If they ARE sure, they're no different than the people they mock.
I KNOW there's no way fir you to logically claim certainty, therefore you are illogical. Hence, atheism if defined as a certainty is as much of a fraud as any belief system, and I appreciate you being honest about it.
Thus, despite people's attempts to blur the distinctions and say the terms are synonymous there are sharp differences. From my point of view, agnosticism is the only supportable position.

@Storm1752 there's such a thing as evidence or lack there of.. there's such a thing as history or lack there of....there's such a thing as over imagination, laws of physics, and just plain common sense...f you don't see the difference between a "believer" and an "atheist" have a great day..in this case a lack of evidence regarding such an incredible claim is evidence to the contrary
..

@Storm1752 i also stick by my statement that an agnostic is a cautious atheist..

@silvereyes. Oh I don't take anything personally. Your preferred dictionary definitions are fine but these are basic definitions only of course. My point though is, if you look at the relevant posts, the running on this issue has come agnostics, including about this site definition, and not so much from atheists. I think we atheists are very laid back about whether people choose agnostic or atheist. Really.

@silvereyes OK. Just so we're clear, comments like agnostics don't have the balls etc are not something I would say or have said, including here. You can check my contributions. And I haven't read atheists say this about agnostics, but maybe they have. I get the agnostic position, I do, and used it myself in the past. But now the logic of agnostic doesn't work for me. But I think we are all on the same side, ultimately. As I said in another post, I want to fight "The Romans" not us. (Life of Brian). So, when agnostics say atheism is "insane", "arrogant" or "dogmatic" - I quote these as they have been said to me here - it's wrong and doesn't help.

@silvereyes
"...your initial response through make it seem as though I directed the entire message at you ..."
No, I didn't think that. I knew it was a reflection on recent discussions..

"In the end, I think we agree about being on the same side... etc.
I agree.

@David1955 I too have had a hard time and felt misunderstood by some atheists on this site and others. We do get hit with you don't have the balls to admit all religions are fake, or so you might believe in the bible and the abrahamic god. It's hard to define the God of the gaps. It's even harder to define the unknown and the unknowable.

@Kojaksmom not wishing to stir the pot about agnosticism, but I've had occasion recently to make this point, and I also state it here: I don't know why some agnostics say or assume that a God is unknowable. This is such an assumption. The easiest thing in the world would be for any God to make its presence known or knowable. A voice from the heavens and move a mountain 5 feet to the left. Easy. If any God exists, which I don't believe as there is no evidence, then it chooses not to definitively known or knowable. That's on God, not us. I refuse to say, God is unknowable, so I'd better be an agnostic. Any so-called God could be knowable if it wished.

I don't even believe that theists believe in any god (small "g" ), because I don't know how to conjure up any mental concept in my head whatever of anything theists could mean by the capitalized row of letters "God". So if they haven't defined any god (small "g" ) for the capitalized "God" to mean, then they don't really believe in a god, but only think they do. If you think you know how to conjure up a mental concept of something that you think they mean by "God", then please describe that mental concept so that I'll be able to conjure it up in my head too. Then I could agree with you. But as it is, I can't believe that theists worship any god named "God", they just think they do.

@EdwinMcCravy It is challenging, but I've not taken this challenge so I think it interesting to try. I definitely would not say a God could be feasibly defined as all powerful, all knowing and all loving. The combination is too easily discredited with evidence even without a holy text. Perhaps, though, a God could be defined as powerful and intelligent enough to have influence on earth's formative processes, and passionate about natural processes. Could a superior alien fit this description and be God to some?

@Lookin4myHeathen You've listed the adjectives "powerful", "all-loving", "all-knowing", "intelligent", "influential" and "passionate". But you've not shown that "" is a defined noun for them to modify. Without a defined noun for the adjectives to modify, you have nothing but a list of adjectives. Sorry. Try again?

@EdwinMcCravy Thank you, I do need a complete description. How is this definition for a God? An unidentified alien from an unidentified planet powerful and intelligent enough to have influence on earth's formative processes, and passionate about natural processes. I'm quite sure the unidentified adjectives are problematic, but I'm trying. Lol

@Lookin4myHeathen I think my cat believes I'm a god. But I'm compassionate enough to not try to disuade him.

@GlyndonD I guess I could try to define you as your cat sees you.

@Lookin4myHeathen No, you're not my cat...

@GlyndonD “Owners of dogs will have noticed that, if you provide them with food and water and shelter and affection, they will think you are god. Whereas owners of cats are compelled to realize that, if you provide them with food and water and shelter and affection, they draw the conclusion that they are gods.”

― Christopher Hitchens, The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbelie

What you said..... it brings back to Earth.... that’s why I’m on this heavy site

I think for me personally, it's the disbelief connotation of "atheist" which keeps me from self-identifying as such, whereas "non-theist" lacks such a connotation. I would be okay with "non-theist," but "agnostic" is a much better fit.

@bingst What are you agnostic about the existence of? I ask that because I don't know how to have any concept of anything that theists label "God" to be agnostic about the existence of, so please explain what you're agnostic about. Thank you..

@EdwinMcCravy The nature of ultimate reality, per Webster's definition. It helps to stop thinking within the Judeo-Christian framework.

@bingst "The nature of ultimate reality"? I see those words there "the nature of ultimate reality" but for the life of me, I'm not able to conjure up any thought of anything in my head fror "the nature of ultimate reality" that I know of any reason to believe that any Christians, Jews or Muslims would label "God". If you are able to conjure up such in your head, please describe it for me. Then I will be able to conjure up a concept in my brain for it to mean like you say you are able to have in your brain..

@EdwinMcCravy You make it sound as though I'm talking about a god that I believe in. I am not. The whole point of agnosticism is that the nature of ultime reality is unknown, and you want me to describe it?

I can give you an example. There's been a lot of talk lately that we're actually living in a simulation. One could describe what might be outside the simulation as ultimate reality. But what is its nature? Is it a god? Is it... another level of simulation? Or what? Who knows?

@bingst You said "You make it sound as though I'm talking about a god that I believe in." No, no. You sound like you're talking about a god that you DON'T believe in." Are you able to imagine any god that you DON'T believe in? I claim you aren't able to. So why do you believe you disbelieve in a god if you can't think of any god to disbelieve in. I'm not an atheist because I don't believe Christians have defined any god for me to not believe in. As I have said before, Christians do not believe in a god. They just believe that they believe in a god. They can't be believing in a god because they haven't defined one to believe in. So they don't believe in a god. They just think they do.

@Rhetoric: You say "For me it's the 'strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods'" that I don't really possess at the moment and because of that I can't really call myself an Atheist. Why do you believe that Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe in a god? I know they THINK they do, and they SAY they do. But what god have they defined? They haven't defined a god to believe in. They just think they have. But they haven't. They say "God is the creator of the universe", but that can't possibly mean anything. Why believe it means something? I don't because I don't know how to. How are you able to?

@silvereyes I have a sneaking suspicion you and I are probably closely aligned as our Agnostic views go. It wasn't so much that I was frustrated, well, yeah I supposed I was frustrated. lol! I am just not a fan of that much aggression, contention and disagreement in one place, at one time, by Many individuals. It was a tad overwhelming. I work hard to keep my life harmonious, streamlined, smooth... hence, I am no fan of heated tempers and heated heads, especially. Even I got so irritated and pissed off that I said some nasty things in response to consistently being drug back in After I Tried so hard to explain/express my perspective and get the heck out of dodge. It was like the gravity of that thread kept pulling my poor shuttle back in for a fresh landing and I couldn't escape. lol I did not want it to get to that point, but, even I lost my shit and went after the juggular too and that isn't how I like to go. Sure, I might be sarcastic and even a smart ass from time to time, but in reality I am a Very gentle, compassionate person and I Don't Enjoy hurting others nor insulting them. I was getting it from many angles at once though. I simply didn't reveal what was taking place outside of that thread. That only served to exasperate and already sticky topic to begin with.

Now, because I tend to agree with TMW, frequently, and I swear I am Not trying to simply agree with him, as I have been accused of doing, that seems to have an entirely different wave of bullshit associated with it. It is assumed I am "teaming up" with him, by a few, and that just isn't true. We do not sit around in a private convo some where online deciding how to "tag team" others. We weren't speaking outside of A.com during that entire thread last night, hence, we clearly were not teaming up and plotting. I think it was basically a culmination of events occuring all at once that got under my skin. It isn't how I want things to remain though and I cannot help the fact that I do agree with TMW on a things of this nature. It isn't something planned out. It isn't me trying to kiss his ass. It isn't us plotting this out behind the scenes either, so for anyone wondering or stating those things, I can say right here and now, that isn't the case. Our approaches are different as well. TMW and I don't even have the same approach. I believe people see what they wish to see. If they wish to see it as a coup, they will. I can do nothing to alter that perception other than doing what I am in this moment: explaining things I feel I needn't, but do so for the sake of making it Clear where my head is at.

And honestly, I do agree with you on not minding as much what a person opts to refer to themselves as so long as they do not infringe upon my rights either. I dislike being told I do not understand my Own, self selected label for Myself. Most people that view this as a ridiculous point of contention are typically the ones who have No issues being mislabeled, typically an Atheist around this neck of the woods. And, like you, I am willing to simply accept labels I come across so long as my own is respected all the same.

I would always acknowledge and heed to a request you make of me because I consider you an honest, forthright, genuine person. I see you as a solid beacon at this site and you were one of the first people here that I initially took notice of. There are a small few of individuals here that I would do whatever they asked of me because of Who they are, How I perceive them based on their input and output. I am fond of you so, naturally, I would come if you made a request for my attendance, so to speak. chuckle Even if I wasn't too keen on the topic at hand, haha, I would still succumb to your request.

@silvereyes I just posted a public apology, actually, for my behaviour last night. I'm bothered by my behaviour. I'm ashamed of some of the mean things I said. It's not my nature. It was just a lot to deal with all at once and I lost control. I felt it Necessary to publicly take responsibility for what I did, what I said and to truly apologize for my actions.

I don't like where that went...

Yes, I agree about TMW. I like to practice the same philosophy of taking my own beliefs and theories apart and deeply delving into my own nature to find the real "truths" I hold to. It's a difficult process. It's also how I became an Agnostic. I,too, bounced around from atheist to Agnostic for a time there. Eventually I realize I prefer the Eastern philosophy of the middle path. This is why I tend to agree with TMW on numerous things. That's why I first clicked his name, because I adhere to belief in the middle path. It didn't just happen to me. It took decades of difficult self analysis and of painful honesty to come to this conclusion, all the while u was losing religion. There was a time I was devout. Hardcore. Pentecostal. Eventually I stopped at latter day saint, last of over a dozen churches I was baptized in while in search of the True Church. I Earned the middle path philosophy through bloodletting my... Soul, if you will. So, it is much the same for me. I continue to purge my truths, to refine them, and to try each day to become a better version of myself. It is a constant work in progress. But I find it is Well Worth It. I would want to be no other way.

And I do think you and I have some similar points of view too. I honestly do watch and study people typically before I approach them, so even though you do hear a ton From me, directly, I have been watching, and not just you, I watch Many people. Haha. And si senorita!!

@silvereyes typo, "so even thought you Don't hear a ton From me, directly".

For some reason it would allow me to edit that post.

Both do... Like some decent transliterations of the Tao te Ching... We can't know the light sans darkness.

Don't credit me. I have no idea who beat me to it, but I know I'm not nearly clever enough to have thought of it first.
@silvereyes & @Tenacious

@BobFenner that occurred to me but I declined to elaborate for the sake of pithiness

@stinkeye_a Heeeee! I so wish I were pithy. Cheers

@silvereyes - I didn't think of it that way; yes, it's an out for the faithful, but not well thought out. You can't believe with evidence and please god at the same time.

@silvereyes - Absolutely - your point underlines mine that the whole thing is a house of cards. I was also trying to relate it to those here who would change their position if evidence ever surfaced; those that lean toward agnosticism for that reason.

As we've just discussed, there simply isn't any evidence... Can't be. To me, this weakens the agnostic stance if you're agnostic only for the reason evidence may surface. It's almost like Pascal's wager actually...

@silvereyes Yes. For me, agnosticism goes far beyond the question of whether or not a god exists.

I find this troubling. I've been told that I'm really an atheist and not just an agnostic, and that I'm too afraid to admit it. I just simply do not identify with the label "atheist."

Just to be clear about my notion of atheism vs agnosticism, it's very tongue--in-cheek; I never take myself, nor much of anything, that seriously.

@silvereyes Another way to say it.

If you guys and gals would only look through your heads and try hard to come up with a concept that you can believe that Christians, Jews and Muslims believe is labeled "a concept of God", you would realize that you can't! "God" is meaningless, and that destroys theism, atheism, and agnosticism. But for some reason, you just can't stand to admit to yourselves that all three stands, theism, atheism and agnosticism are beliefs on faith. That faith is that "God" is a meaningful word, when the truth is that "God" is just as meaningless as "Zab".

@EdwinMcCravy Don't know what you use for definitions, but I totally disagree. there is no 'faith' in atheism. Atheism is that someone says "there is a god!" the atheist says, "prove it", the theist says "I can't", so the atheist states, "then I don't believe it". No faith needed or wanted. It's a lack of belief. 'god' is meaningful as a concept because it carries so much weight in so many societies, but it still doesn't prove the concept is a tangible, actual 'thing'.

@phxbillcee Look, Phxbillcee, use your head, please. If I had said "I can't play the violin", would you say "I disagree"? Of course not! That would be a very dumb thing to say! So when I say "I cannot "imagine God, nor believe you can either", you don't say "I disagree". What you say is "I can imagine God and here is a description of what I am imagining when I imagine God: __ -- and then fill in the blank. That way you will have educated me and then I will be able to imagine God. So educate me as to how to imagine God. Otherwise I can only believe you are like me and can't, but can only fib and say you can when you can't.

@silvereyes The word "god" with a small "g" is well defined as something worshiped, whether existent or nonexistent. But there is no evidence that the capitalized version "God", which theists utter, is meaningful, so why believe it is a meaningful word? That's what I don't get.

@silvereyes You say "all words carry some meaning". I agree that most do, but not necessarily all. Why do you believe that all words do? I don't. What does "God" (when spoken by a Christian) mean?. Don't say it means a flying spaghetti monster, for it doesn't. No theists claims to worship a flying spaghetti monster. So what does "God" mean?

True for "atheist," but not "agnostic" as the word doesn't relate directly to the Gnostics, IMO.

Thanks for the link Middle Way. It's much appreciated. And it has good definitions of the two words I asked about.

I would have no complaint with the word "atheist" to mean merely "non-theist" if people would use it that way. But what bothers me is that they don't. They use it to mean "one who does not believe that any gods exist". That's because they believe fully that "God", "Yahweh" and "Allah" represent an imaginary god, like the imaginary but well-defined god Zeus. But Christians, Jews, and Muslims don't worship any god at all, they only THINK they do., Therefore "one who does not believe that any gods exist" applies to Christians, Jews and Muslims as well as virtually everybody else.

Trouble is, the people I know who call themselves agnostics usually say something like "I don't know if there is a god". This implies a monotheist alternate belief. Some say things like "There must be something" implying that while they are not convinced of the christian fairy tale but they do believe in the supernatural. Most people I know, including myself, are open minded about nature and the cosmos but are skeptical and believe in the scientific method to convince them (us) of anything. Philosophically speaking there is enough empirical evidence to prove that there is no entity worth of worship and that there cannot be an all powerful, all knowing and all loving entity. Any two of the above are logically possible but not all three. Many who profess to be agnostic ignore this logic.

Oops, I meant to say most people who label themselves as atheist, including ....

May I ask why atheists and agnostics believe "God" to be a meaningful word? I still have not seen an answer to this question.

That is a great chart and sums it up nicely.

Can't agree with that chart. There are two kinds of people in the world. There are those who claim 100% certainty about God one way or the other. And then there are honest people.
Additionally, from a Believer's point of view, this chart denies the existence of faith. Where there is 100% certainty there is no need for faith. One does not have faith that one plus one equals two.

@Heraclitus sounds like you are oversimplifying.
Nothing wrong with choosing to specify if you are an agnostic atheist vs a agnostic theist. And while I don't agree with gnostics and both may be irrational stances there are certainly some major differences between gnostic theists and gnostic atheists, I would only lump them together in the category of claiming to know something for sure that they don't.
Referring to the latter half of your statement:
"Certain in/of their faith" then(or at least they say)

@ClaytonE83 Yes, I can agree with what you say, just not with the oversimplication of that chart.

@JustLynnie you have concluded you don't have enough facts to definitively support the existence of a god, but what do you believe?

You're agnostic whether you like it or not. Period.

@Storm1752 you don't get to tell me who or what i am. period.

g

@genessa i just did. Again. You just think 'atheist' sounds cooler. It SOUNDS ignorant.

@Storm1752 no, you just thought you did. and i don't give a shit about what sounds cool, and you have no clue about why i call myself an atheist, although i thought i explained it fairly well. but if you're going to be disrespectful, then you won't get to call me anything anymore. you are the one who sounds ignorant.

g

@Doraz I thought "good" was one of the defining characteristics of "god." But you're right; to believe in "god," the definition would have to be radically revised.

@Doraz In other words, there is no evidence for a "god" and if one insists god is "good," hell or no hell, the evidence is convincing there isn't. So if one insists there IS a "god," that "god" must be "evil." Put another way, god must be a complete asshole. OR, as an alternative, "god" must be something else entirely different than which is commonly thought. No clue what that might be, which is precisely the agnostic point of view.

@Doraz That is, IF there is a "god." Still no evidence in support of such a possibility.

Well put.

@WizardBill True. Unknown. But, the concept has no basis in fact. Just a concept. Same as warp drive. An idea until someone proves it's either possible or impossible.

@TheMiddleWay That's great info - I think empirical agnosticism is what I would like to refer myself as. Thanks.

Please define the deity that you believe that Christians, Jews and Muslims believe in. Thanks.