@JohnnyQB That is not correct. It is true that some people use the word to mean belief without evidence, and that has its antecedent in Hume and Kant. However, the Greek word of the 1st C CE means 'trust' or 'reliance', and is used in contexts in which the person who has 'faith' does so based on some event. Thus faith is based on evidence. Of course, you and I may wish to contest the evidence, but the view that 'faith' is blind is not consistent with how the word is used in the 1st C CE or the BCE era for that matter.

"'Does that make her agnostic? Not if she acts according to her beliefs. I am agnostic now but she may well not be." But then if I live in accordance with my belief that 'gods' have no independent existence, does that mean I cannot also be agnostic? I believe belief can go with agnosticism if you're smart enough to see through the apparent obstacle, just like our belief that whatever this business is people carry on about gods can be true even while we acknowledge our dearth of evidence.

Oops, misspoke. I meant to say our belief that gods do not exist can very well reside next to our recognition of our agnosticism.

@MarkWD If you act according to a belief that gods have no independent existence, then you would be either an agnostic or an atheist (it would depend on whether or not you believe gods have a dependent existence, and, if so, if that upon which they depend is objective or subjective (in the mind of the person who believes). A person who believes in the Christian God, admits the possibility they may be wrong, but nonetheless lives according to their beliefs is surely not an agnostic. If one were to describe such a person as agnostic then this term would become so elastic as to have no meaning.

@JohnnyQB I'm not arguing on what I personally believe: I am calling out a popular but factually wrong view of how the Greek and hebrew words for faith are used and what they mean. yes, some will use 'faith' to mean what you claim it means, but that's not how many if not most believers use this term.
Some arguments against believers lack credibility.

Might they at least disapprove in an agreeable manner?

@MarkWD We can hope for civility

Sorry, I put my reply to you after SanDiego's post. This was meant for you.

It is rare but I know some who cop to agnosticism out of recognition of their own limitation while hanging onto faith in hope. It seems like a fine dance for them to take the position but some manage.

@MarkWD Like many so called Christians compartmentalize their faith. Christian scientists are particularly adept at this, knowing that what they profess to believe is completely impossible yet continuing to profess belief. Unfortunately, this leads to very un-Christlike Christians.

@sterlingdean Yeah, boastful and pushy is often the norm online.

They made her a saint, I'd have classified her as a pathological martyr.

Has anyone ever complemented you on your nuanced way of looking at things?

@p-nullifidian many times.

@p-nullifidian Hey mofo actually posted a whole paragraph yesterday ! It was special

@twill not a rarity my funny friend, but I do prefer brief, straight and to the point.. And even my 1 or two paragraphs are short and sweet, definitely not snore inducing and much less, boring.

@Mofo1953 I swear that was the 1st time I saw you post more than 10 words at once!

@twill depends on the group I post.

@Mofo1953 Gotcha

My father attended a Methodist church. So when I went with once later in life as an exercise in reaching out .. boy was that church not at all happy with me. I was pretty naive then so I probably pissed them off by criticizing them for supporting missionaries, it being such obvious cultural hegemony. The preacher immediately turned to someone else in the congregation and asked "what should we do when we have a snake in our midst?" There was no point in trying that again. Awful people.

@MarkWD Obviously congregations differ, ours is incredibly inclusive.

Not sure who or what you are addressing here.

@MarkWD I'm addressing those who want the middle ground - agnostic.

@Atheist3 I don't really think agnostics represent a middle ground. They're simply the ones paying attention to their epistemic position and respecting others' right to decide for themselves where a conclusive argument isn't possible in either direction. Of course agnostics can still nonetheless honestly harbor no belief in any gods, or they can find their upbringing affords them such belief even if they realize they can't adequately justify it. So, it seems to me, you can have agnostic atheists (very common) and agnostic theists (much more rare).

@MarkWD BS! Agnostic means "a lack of knowledge". Same as the word 'ignorant'. Hence the word, ignostic. However if you check out agnostos theos on Wikipedia you will find that agnostics believed in a god that was hidden. They only lacked knowledge of the god but still believed in a god. They were theists. Stop the BS!

@Atheist3 "Stop the BS" yourself. How does what you said in anyway imply that anyone expressing a different opinion in BS'ing?

@MarkWD If a person wants to hang a label on oneself, then they should, at least, know where the label comes from & stop bs'ing.

Do cars exist in order to allow people to drive recklessly? It seems gratuitous to define .Christianity in terms of one of its unintended results.

Of course one might believe that Jesus was a real man who when he died stayed dead. But if they believe in a resurrection, they must think that Jesus himself was god.

I think more often people experience something within which seems to be separate from them and assume it must be the god people in their culture speak of. What else could it be?

Of course it could also be something happening in the depths of their consciousness which doesn't fall under their conscious control, like dreams.