I'm definitely not a nullifidian. I have a high regard for the gifts of the intuitive mind. I don't depend on it for tasks best left to the rational mind, but I definitely have faith in it because, as a creative person , I know where my bread gets buttered.

@MarkWD While some of us may be more talented (subjectively), we are all creative persons. What do you mean by "gifts of the intuitive mind?" And when you say that you "know where your bread gets buttered," are you saying that it is not on "tasks best left to the rational mind?" In other words, is your bread buttered (i.e., salary paid) by irrationality?

I like.

"I identify as agnostic atheist. Atheist because I do not hold the belief that any gods exist. Agnostic because I accept that it cannot be known whether one does or does not exist. It is not because I think there is a reasonable chance that one, or more than one, does. I see no reason to think that any gods might exist--but, I accept that I will never know."

I would say the same but then it sort of depends on what someone has in mind by God or gods. Omni-everything, creator of everything, keeper of the ever-after amusement parks? Nope.

"If someone tells me they believe a god exists, or might exist, I do not draw the conclusion that they do not have the ability to reason. I can understand that to them it is not "reasonable" that all of this just "happened;" but the irony is that they accept that this god or cosmic consciousness has simply always existed--and that just complicates things."

This is the essence of my point, that what seems reasonable depends on POV. But neither side has the patent on the gold standard of reasonableness for the reasons we are both agnostic. Of course science is the gold standard for empirical questions. It has earned it. But not every question is empirical in nature, obviously.

"And, it really bothers me when people not only claim that they "know" there is a god, but also that they "know" the will of this god because it has been revealed to them/humanity either in a holy book, visions, or some other personal experience. This, to me, is NOT reasonable thinking and no matter what one does or says it cannot even be disguised as reasonable thinking."

Totally agree. Believers definitely have a dark side. Self serving pronouncements of what their secret friend thinks is part of it. At least some of them don't like the political/church connection, my religious younger brother for one.

"BTW: this is not to say that "holy" books/writings cannot have words of inspiration and/or wisdom; but, it is human-inspired wisdom--not the wisdom of any god."

Of course is is human wisdom, but I to give them their due I suppose it is the human wisdom that arises from humans who feel themselves in relation to and inspired by that deity. Would they have the same insights if they felt themselves to be a bipedal mammal connected only to other humans? Regardless we can point to plenty of inspired writings by nonbelievers and by people who believe in other dieities.

@MarkWD "Of course is is human wisdom, but I to give them their due I suppose it is the human wisdom that arises from humans who feel themselves in relation to and inspired by that deity. Would they have the same insights if they felt themselves to be a bipedal mammal connected only to other humans? Regardless we can point to plenty of inspired writings by nonbelievers and by people who believe in other deities."

Unfortunately, humans do a lot of horrible things because of what they think a deity has told them, inspired them, to do. I think the world would certainly be a better place if everyone realized that there is no "divine wisdom," that we are the makers of our morality and of our gods. When one thinks wisdom/laws/ morality comes from a god, it makes it a lot harder to change for the better and easier to justify the bad--or the downright horrific.

@Joanne I don't disagree but I also don't harbor any illusion that minus religion human stupidity would be no more. People have done shitty things to each other all though history. Doesn't mean I don't also get tired of hearing believers opine about how universal acceptance of Christianity will bring in a new age of good. That is obviously bonkers.

@MarkWD Oh, I agree. We would find ways to justify harming each other, etc. And, we cannot deny that a lot of harm has resulted due to science (learning how to make nuclear bombs, for instance). And, we can see that the industrial revolution, and its aftermath, has been bad for the environment.

But, this does not mean that we should not fight against the negative effects of religions; and work to help people recognize that neither religion, nor a god, is necessary for a person to be good and to do good.

Where we are now as a species, we need to look toward reason and good science if we want to come up with answers to global problems. I don't have a problem with people believing in a god along the way; however, that god, whichever one it is, shouldn't get in the way.

I wonder if you could tell me how you're viewing "acceptable" that sets it apart from "reasonable". If I acknowledge that I have no conclusive reason why they should think as I do then it is fine with me for them to hold a different point of view.

@MarkWD There is a difference between what is logical and what is understandable. Religion is not logical but it is understandable given that people are indoctrinated into it from an early age. Your pointing out logical inconsistencies cannot overcome that emotional attachment from family and community that people have to religion. What is really not logical is if you fail to understand this and react with intolerance.

@MarkWD I think lots of things are acceptable that are not reasonable. Perhaps that's because reason is so often a subjective thing. The apostle Paul, for instance, wrote reams about how faith was not only reasonable but a blessed thing to have. We might not think so but I would say his faith is completely acceptable. I'm hardly alone in that.

@brentan this hair might be too fine for me to split. Googling "reasonable" I find:

1. (of a person) having sound judgment; fair and sensible.

2. as much as is appropriate or fair; moderate.

Since we are talking about whether a person is being reasonable lets go with #1. The similar words they list for "reasonable" include:
sensible
rational
open to reason
full of common sense
logical
fair
fair-minded
just
equitable
decent
intelligent
wise
levelheaded
practical
realistic
based on good sense
sound
judicious
well thought out
well grounded
reasoned
well reasoned
valid
commonsensical
advisable
well advised
tenable
plausible
feasible
credible
acceptable
admissible
believable
viable
Opposite:
unreasonable
illogical

Logical is in there but so is "open to reason", and I think we both acknowledge that we are unable to provide them with conclusive reasons even if they are open to hearing us try.

I guess I judge a person of faith as being reasonable if I feel they can really hear my reasons for not sharing their belief without becoming defensive or judgmental and can admit that my position too is reasonable.

@MarkWD I don't see how a long list of synonyms removes subjectivity from reason. i agree believers can be very irritating but I was only talking about our attitude to their faith.

@brentan I guess I got caught up in the challenge of splitting reasonable from acceptable. I guess for myself I don't want to be condescending about a person's faith if in all other respects they show themselves to be intelligent, thoughtful and open. For that reason, when confronted by such a believer, I did decide that her belief given her context and her reasons was in fact reasonable. My fondness for the person might have had some influence on that decision. Hard to say.

@MarkWD Yes indeed - there are intelligent Christians out there but the smug judgemental type would drive you up the wall. To use their own wording, I think love covers a multitude of sins and quite often it's the atheist having to use it with the Christian.

@brentan Smug, condescending Christians are the worst and they are numerous. I just don't want to let that drive me into adopting the same attitudes.

It is important to me because I am an atheist but prefer when meeting a believer that they not assume that means I will be belligerent, intolerant and hateful toward them.

@MarkWD Why would any of the different variations you mention on non belief mean any thing different to a believer .Believers lump all nonbelievers in one category anyway .They assume you either believe in god or you do not believe in god .These close minded individuals do not care about these sub categories of non belief ,these variations are all basically the same to them .I know first hand from 65 years of being a nonbeliever .After many years of telling a person close to me I am an agnostic they continue calling me an atheist.

@Emanuele It takes some digging but you can find a better class of believers. But the vast horde of believers are as you describe. They don't interest me and I don't really care what they think since they've abdicated that function for the most part. I have the advantage of living in an area where believers don't speak up a lot because they are out numbered. So the ones I find that aren't like you describe are online. Still not easy to find though.

Yes

You asked: "What exactly is an “agnostic atheist” in your mind? My definition is that it means someone who holds the view that there is no deity or god (atheist), and who also believes that the existence of a deity or god is unknowable in either principle or fact (agnostic)."

Yes we define it in different ways. I don't see atheism as having any defining characteristic apart from lacking belief in gods. Holding a positive belief that no gods exist is something more than just atheism. My atheism stems from my not sharing belief in any gods.

You said: "I’m pretty sure most people who believe in god think it’s reasonable to do so, that doesn’t mean though that I have to agree."

And I made no comment on that. I only said it is reasonable for people to believe things which I don't if they have reasons I don't share. What is it reasonable for people to want or hope for? I'm just saying it is reasonable that people will want and hope for different things than I do. I do not define what is reasonable for all of mankind based solely on my own experience.

@MarkWD I must correct you, I did not say that I had a belief that no gods exist, but that I have a view that no god or gods exist, that view is based entirely on never being convinced by any argument for god’s existence, because it’s not logical to believe something without any evidence. Atheism is not a belief it’s quite the reverse of a belief, it’s in fact a disbelief...one simply cannot believe in disbelief, that is oxymoronic. Nor can a person be a believer and a disbeliever simultaneously as they are antonyms of each other,

@Marionville sorry if I mischaracterized what you said. But I admit my person who holds "a positive belief that no gods exist" does seem pretty equivalent to your "someone who holds the view that there is no deity or god" to my way of thinking. I suppose that just goes to show how poor a medium words can be for conveying meaning.

@MarkWD Yes..sometimes they can carry an ambiguity,.

"Agnostic - does not have direct knowledge of what a God thingie is or it's existing and says it could never be known.

Atheist - says it is false that purported God thingies exist.

Agnostic athiest - does not have direct knowledge of what a God thingie is or it's existing and says it could never be known so they say it is false that porported God thingies exist.

Agnostic basicly illogical for claim of "...it could never be known"."

But course you are applying the strong definitions of agnosticism and atheism. An agnostic need not hold the position that it can never be known; a mere admitting that they cannot see how it could be known (soft or weak agnosticism) still gets one in the agnostic club.

Likewise an atheist need not take the position that no gods can exist. It is enough to admit that you at least harbor belief in no such thing (soft or weak atheism). No pronouncement about these poorly defined "god thingies" need be included to get you in the atheist club.

I'd say I'm an agnostic atheist, both in the weak sense. I would never claim to know the status of anything so poorly defined as "god thingies". I'm so stealing your terminology.

@MarkWD STRONG week POTATO potato TOMATO tomato. This is how I see the strong week discussion.

I will make this point that I understand early Christians were called atheist because they didn't worship the Roman God thingies. Words can have different meanings at different times for different people.

What I think I see or understand going on: Any one that is theist would see any atheist as an atheist strong, week doesn't matter. A duck is a duck is a duck.

Have you ever heard of a soft theist? Almost funny to me as I find it sounding to me just now as I come up with it. I have understood some Christians might consider themselves what could be given term soft theist but in churchy terms they might be considered to of done a "back slide", going back to those worldly ways. What I mean by this is they hold their belief that Jesus exist as a type of God thingie that Is out of their knowing of how everything works in this "kingdom of God" but they are still human animals that makes mistakes or smokes cigarettes, or even uses a cuss word or two every now and then. Church officials may not be accepting of them because they do not follow some of these modern "churchy norms". Many of these 'soft theist' may rarely every go to church, much less give tithe and offerings to the church.

So here's my point, wheither strong or week, hard or soft, is an atheist not still an atheist and a theist not still a theist?

I often think a term could be made up that would be more appropriate for many Atheist and agnostics.

There are those that want to remain logical and not make a claim but they beat all around they bush with terminology and giving different definations trying to say "i really think in my private thoughts that no god thingies exist, but I am not going to say it out of my mouth as a claim". However on the other hand, Here is a defination that might could use a word for it that is Almost agnostic but basicly omits the strong illogical claim of "it could never be known that god thingies exist".

Within the one's knowledge, a God thingie is not known or understood to exist and one would NOT say something along the lines of "it is impossible for an all-powerful God thingie to slap the ever-living shit out of them", because it would be illogical for someone to say it is impossible for any all-powerful to do anything. And so on, they could have their personal experience proof because they do not see a reason in their life to have any God thingie experiences. The current list of purported God thingies does not appeal to them to give any worship, recognition, praise, money, so on so for. HOWEVER, if someone else had a real existant God thingie that works for them and doesn't impose or force things on the one(s) not interested in God thingies, then it is perfectly possible that God thingies really do exist and only reveal themselves to those that have true interest. (got to come back and edit for clarity on this last part, i already know, but got to send reply and go for now)

@MarkWD I really don't claim "god thingie" as my terminology. I have heard about all kinds of thingies, thing-a-ma-bobs, whatchmacallits, do-hickies, widgets and such all my life. I just so happen to put the word "God" with thingie in such manner.

@Word your post inspired me to google "soft theist" where I found this interesting article on Patheos: [patheos.com]

Some excerpts:

"Now, I’m a soft theist.

..

I don’t see god/goddess as personal. I don’t believe that deities answer our prayers or intervene in the world on our behalf or otherwise. I don’t accept that such beings exist, because I have no evidence that they do, nothing to appeal to that confirms their reality"

"Soft Theism operates from the vantage point of spiritual realism – an epistemological conservatism that humbly seeks to understand reality and tries to offer some explanation for events and circumstances. Honest living offers ample experiences of tragedy, unmerited suffering, random and superfluous evil that tempers any inclination to lofty, unjustified saccharine theologies."

"From the perspective of Soft Theism, the lack of evidence for interventionist gods and goddesses doesn’t require that we completely eliminate all notions of God and deity. Soft Theism understands the multivalent values of employing a god/goddess concept."

I find it interesting but I'm not in the market for a new descriptor so I'm not ready to buy..

@MarkWD thinking of my post I said needed edit for clarity, I'll just continue and try to clearify the thought here. I think it goes along with your find of soft theist.

I have in past post and other discussion comments explained how biblical text says the people are gods. A person would not fit the definition of an all powerful God thingie but still people considered and accepted as gods. If you understand all powerful and consider 2 all powerful at the same time and place it would not seem to be logically possible. 2 all powerful fight against each other. Both should over power the other contradicts. Logically there can be only one all powerful at the same place and time. People being many would not be the all powerful style of a God thingie but they are considered gods. Lesser style of gods. People exist, people are considered gods, gods exist.

I have explained this to hard atheist that completely reject any possible acceptance of labeling a person as a God thingie. They say a true God thingie is like Harry Potter style or greater in supernatural capabilities. It is not scientificly verfied and freely published and publicly known if anyone is Harry Potter style or greater of capabilities.

Anyhow, having written those 2 paragraphs thinking it sets a stage for saying: If a person accepts people being labeled as God thingies then by defination that person would be a theist. This theist is not specifically worshiping people as it is often considered a requirement if a person is a theist. Theist defined simply as accept it as true that god(s) exist.

What then could a person be labeled if they can accept that people label other people as God thingies but that person themselves is not into labeling or worshiping rock stars, movie stars, movie stars as Gods etc. ?

For a person labeling themselves as atheist or agnostic it would not be logical or common word defination usage to say, "I can accept that things are labelled as God thingies and those God thingie so labeled do in fact exist, however, it is not my interest in giving worship, etc. To someone elses labeled God thingie."

Could this be called a theist that is non-participant in common theism activities, worship etc?

I am soft theist in regards to people being labeled as God thingies that exist. I am soft agnostic as to Harry Potter style God people existing, i have no knowledge of such Harry Potter style God people existing but I would not say "I could never know if a Harry Potter style God exist".

@Word All those suggestions of envisioning Harry Potter style magic beings or Pharaoh styled deities still insist on imagining a concrete God assuming a place in our empirical world. I don't believe the soft theist thinks any such thing exists. The Other that the soft theist embraces is something relational within the person himself. No, not himself. But something elusive within consciousness which is different than ones imagination.

I think what Iain McGilchrist writes about in his book The Master and His Emissary about the relations between the rational mind and the intuitive mind comes close. Consciously we engage the world through our rational mind, but some of us at leasts recognize the occasional contributions of our intuitive mind. I suspect it is this bifurcation in consciousness which has made god belief possible and the metaphors of religion engaging. But no gods understood as independent, external, centralized beings exist.

@MarkWD I had a recent discussion where I brought up slime mold cognition of a "brainless mind". Something I consider is moving away from the use of the term "god" and consider the possibility of a cognition capability being on or in the kinetic energy environment of the Earth's atmosphere.

I would have to look for my previous comment on the other post from a few weeks ago but I consider speculations that might make for a point to explore the possibility that like the brainless mind of the slime mold or something like the interaction of the fungi with the zombie ant fungi. parasitic cognition connection to other bodies of cognition. Then, those that experienced such cognition experiences being "goat hearders" and not scientist make hyperbole or give incorrect attributes to their experience of something that then becomes to be called "God".

I probably should have said "obliged to find those beliefs "reasonable" - from the POV of the believer, given their life experience and so forth. I definitely didn't mean reasonable for everyone.

"D" 4th answer in multiple choice questions.

"God is a made up word of what humans seem to explain the existence of our being but it is just a word that gives humanistic traits to a powerful entity."

I suppose if we think about it at all it is hard not to hypothesize what motivates people's beliefs which would be unreasonable by our own standards. I do it too. I tend to think belief in literal gods is mostly inherited by way of culture. Of course cultures also have a beginning so sometimes I wonder what in the world could have motivated the leap to god belief. My best guess is that once people started recognizing and looking for the intentions of others it wouldn't be too great a leap to look for intentionality in all manner of natural phenomenon. But the structure of consciousness with part in our awareness but most of it not could also have contributed to it. But of course the idea of gods as unified external beings does not jive with our notion of the natural world, and I for one have no use for a supernatural category.

"That is unreasonable for me but YOU are right their private reason for their belief in god(s) is reasonable for them."

You and I are applying the term "reasonable" in the same way. But apparently some think what counts as reasonable should be independent of personal circumstances and perspective. I think that is too black and white.

Me too. I have much respect for theists who will own their share of agnosticism.

@FrankA Wrong,

A (not) + theist (person that believes a god exists) = atheist. It is that simple.

atheist lacks a belief in a god

IS NOT THE SAME AS

atheist believes ". . . ""belief" that no gods exist" there is no god."

When you redefine atheist with a belief no god exists you shift the positive burden of proof to the atheist. This why theists define atheist with your quote.

Agnostic does not address if you do or do not BELIEVE a god exists.

Agnostic addresses the assertion that knowledge of a god can be known.

You can have agnostic theists.

@FrankA "I ask you...have you ever known a person who describes him/herself as "atheist" who does NOT "believe" there are no gods."

Yes.

Almost every atheist I know (including myself) holds that position.
The beginning of this video clearly states my (and those I know) position.

I LACK A BELIEF IN A GOD. As I stated earlier this is difference then asserting then asserting "they "Beleive" there is no god". I lack a belief. I do not believe there is no god. This is more then semantics.

To get a better understanding of this position and your confusion of atheist relationship to agnostic
spend a few minutes and watch this video.

@FrankA Also, the use of "a" in atheist regardless of chronological word evolution has and does work. Read this link and discover your "IT DOESN'T...AND NEVER HAS" is less then honest. It works and clearly and correctly follows the rules. [dictionary.com]

@FrankA Sorry you demonstrate the inability to understand the difference.

Your assertion that I am kidding myself is profoundly ignorant on your behalf.

Your assertion that I am "spout bullshit" is a classic case of psychological projection.

I take it by the your response you were unwilling or unable to follow (or comprehend) the links.

This is sad.

To an atheist, belief is irrelevant. There are no deities. It is not that there is any "belief", because the position of an atheist is not one of belief. It is a position arrived at by virtue of reason. If one choses to say "I don't know", that is fine. That does not change the fact that agnosticism sets aside reason in order to be cautious or afraid to utilize reason on this topic. Atheism is not a belief but the default position of existence. This does not mean that that one puts down an agnostic for their views. Often most atheists get to their philisophical position via agnosticism. It is part of the journey to atheism which can be very difficult for some people.

@Krez-Kiin I can see what you mean, but there are some agnostics who see the ontology of what some others consider "deities" to be variable. An existence in ontology doesn't imply an existence in fact. Then there is what "belief" pans out as - in some cases not being under tyranny (though since recently, religious authorities have mostly wanted to turn it into tyranny). Both these points are independent of whether it matters (which it does in some cases and doesn't in others). And there may be some agnostics who set aside reason or are afraid to use it but that's not compulsory for us. Like Russell says he can call himself a straight atheist forthrightly. Descriptions allude, they don't paint anyone into corners. That IS why atheism is "default position of existence". I wouldn't know what anyone else's beliefs really are, but if they got pushy I would probably see if they are different from what they say.

What you find unacceptable is their distorting as pretext for hatred and oppression towards others. Their bad for distorting, dishonesty and oppressing. Not its.

I was once taught by a fabulous man, and true scientist who taught that there are no facts only hypotheses that haven’t been disproven. I find your remark insulting to his memory. There is no moral cowardice in admitting you don’t know. In fact I think it’s rather the opposite. People spend their lives learning and relearning, unless they’re closed to new ideas.

Only looking for conversation with those interested in the topic. I don’t care what you think my motives are so, better yet, psychoanalyze yourself.

I wonder if you could try to edit that. I'm intrigued to understand what you're saying but I think you have a few typos. (Happens to me too.)