How does that differ from being a regular deist?

How do you figure most folks on here are atheists rather than agnostics?

I shan't argue with your beliefs just because I don't share them, especially as you are not pushing them on anyone, but I will note that my guy believes in "a god who invented evolution" and is a bit horrified by my ag dot com t-shirt so certainly doesn't call himself an agnostic. Me, I'm an atheist. But I have no idea or perception that most of us on this site are this rather than that, and some claim to be both.

g

Of course you would have to provide evidence for the existence of this diety. You can't point to the natural as proof of the supernatural. It would be a case of 'correlation without causality'. In other words, you would have to show how the supernatural causes the natural.

So you're basically a deist, like many of the founding fathers were.

I think there is a higher power but i don't specifically know what it is. That's just my opinion and maybe its just me slowly dialing back from christianity that subconsciously i feel that there has to be a higher power. I don't know but i do feel there are alot of unexplained things out there. I just don't buy into man made religion whereas is you don't believe the same thing they do then you are going to hell and deserve to have your head cut off.

Okay. That's fair enough but why do you accept the natural order of the universe then shoehorn an unproven god into it? Why do you think there has to be a magical superbeing anywhere in this equation?

It's okay to just say - "I don't know". I doubt any of us ever will.

If God is real he is a d... for creating such a mess and stepping back. You can call me agnostic antitheist

I think there's definitely a system that's set up so that things are ongoing, such as water evaporating and going into the air, then raining down to earth to go into plants so that they will grow. Those types of systems are all around. Did those systems just happen or were they implemented by something or someone? If there is a being who did that, who created the being. That too would be a circle, or cycle, without a beginning or end. The earth revolving around the sun, the moon revolving around the earth, the earth turning. Cycles.

Agnostic is the scientific position as absence of proof is not proof of absence. When one side or the other comes up with proof, then I will subscribe to it.

I think the common ground with agnostics and atheists is that the evidence of a personal deity is vague at best. Therefore such a shoddy contingency should not be a limiting factor in one's behaviour.

How do you figure most folks on here are atheists rather than agnostics?

I shan't argue with your beliefs just because I don't share them, especially as you are not pushing them on anyone, but I will note that my guy believes in "a god who invented evolution" and is a bit horrified by my ag dot com t-shirt so certainly doesn't call himself an agnostic. Me, I'm an atheist. But I have no idea or perception that most of us on this site are this rather than that, and some claim to be both.

g

Another thing to think about.

We split from the chimps on the evolutionary tree about 5 million years ago.

It would be quite easy for one or more humans to completely control the lives of a group of chimps without the chimps ever being aware we were doing it.

Some creatures could be doing the same thing to us.

That’s interesting. I too have a supposition, (according to Thomas-covernant, who I am learning to respect!). But it’s based on gut feelings and I have no way of proving, or even adequately explaining. Therefore I remain agnostic, awaiting what I still call the greatest adventure of all, which I always add I am in no hurry to arrive at i. e. death.

i’m technically an agnostic atheist. i don’t believe any god exists but i don’t claim to know for a fact that none does. though i consider it similar to be an agnostic a-fairyist because i can’t technically prove fairies don’t exist either. i don’t think gnosticism is a very honest position to hold about a lot of things, so i feel the same way about gods

I consider myself an agnostic atheist. I don't believe in gods one way or another nor do I believe I'll ever know if they're truly real or not.

If I did believe in a god, it'd probably be something along the lines of what you said.. but that still raises the question of where this god came from. Did this god exist before writing the natural laws? Who wrote their natural laws that lead to said god creating the natural laws of our universe? If this god always existed, what was it doing before creating our natural universe? Was it creating universes that are written to be born and die? If it is eternal, does it get bored with a universe and destroy it to start over? Just way too many questions with only assumptions as answers with that belief for me..

I don't know anything about gods, which l think qualifies as agnostic.
I don't believe in it/them, as other humans describe them, and will not let those empty assertions dictate my life, which l think qualifies as atheist too. It's hard to know these days what the definition is.

To me being agnostic means that I don’t know. Admitting that allows me to get on with living. If something changes involving evidence, or I die, (which I will; but hopefully not too soon). I may stop being agnostic

Before you can have a serious discussion about God - you must define God.

being atheist is notto worship anything

I like the simulation theory. Makes me feel like Neo.

I'm also an agnostic neo-deist, and with you all the way!
It's a pleasure meeting a fellow traveller sometimes.

I think of myself as a "true agnostic" although I don't know of any religion whose claims I think may be literally true.But I don't know whether the physical world--that is, the realm accessible to scientific investigation--is all there is or not. And I don't know how to know. By the very nature of the question, I'm sure it can't be answered by science.

It might depend on what flavor of god thingie you are refering to that "set things up ... then stepped back". Parents are creators. Create most commonly means take something and make something new. So, each parent contributed a part of some DNA then just let the chemical reactions take place that brings about a fully developed person that is new. And, most likely never been anyone else of that DNA and other characteristics that makes each individual a unique creation.

For example of something that you say: religion is fake. What religion defination of religion are you referring to? Written in text, defined for about 2000 years, peer reviewed and the text has accomplished world record for being most copied text of it's kind give this defination for religion: James 1:27 Religion... pure and faultless is this: to help widows and orphans in need and avoiding worldly corruption.

It seems to me, IN PART, in some situations, there are those that read biblical text and learn things like the ideal of helping widows and orphans as being religious. Where as there are those that do not read or study biblical text but label people religious all because they read biblical text.

We could be the 7th grade science experiment of a superior being's kid I suppose. Perhaps they see us as atoms and we are too small or are lost in the vast sea of the universe for them to notice us.