@TheMiddleWay Umm... I think you're missing the point that theistic claims are presented as fact, not theory. Theory is a whole different thing, and does have underpinnings in established fact, but I'm just talking about credible theories. There are so-called theories that really have no factual basis. I'm not aware of any religion that presents itself as theory, in any sense of the word. It's always fact. This is why unknown is closer to non-existence than existence, because existence asserts claims with no factual basis as fact.

For me, rationality, reason, and logic are part and parcel of my agnosticism, and I would argue for agnosticism in general. I can't suspend these underpinnings of my agnosticism in order to seriously consider theistic claims as fact. I can treat them as hypotheticals, followed by questions, but theists by and large take this an attack, because I haven't accepted their statements as fact. To put it another way, the agnostic position of unknown is more compatible with non-existence, than existence is to the unknown position.

I would go even further in pointing out that any theist coming to this site would probably view the name of the site in and of itself as being an attack on what they think they know to be true. Unless a theist comes here seeking to explore their doubts, it seems most likely that a theist coming here would be on the attack, here to show us pity, and try to convert us.

@TheMiddleWay

Atheists present their views as fact the same as theist. Look at how many of the members on this site put "100% sure there is no god" to demonstrate this.

Yup I'm pretty sure that is the very definition of atheism.

But how many of those atheists would change their opinion if any evidence for a god or gods showed up? I'm guessing most of not all. In fact the ones who didn't would really be the only ones you have a problem with. If they merely claimed "100% sure there is no EVIDENCE of god" would you be happier?

Furthermore, the debate over the definitions of agnostic and atheist is fucking ridiculous. If a room full of agnostic and/or atheist people can't even settle on a definition, why the fuck would anyone expect labeling himself as one or both of them to an 'outsider' will mean anything whatsoever. We will all have to explain what we mean by whatever label we use, so ultimately this argument is exasperatingly stupid. For me, however, it has become an exercise, a morbid masochistic exercise, to see if I can get one person to recognize faulty logical form and fallacious arguments.

@TheMiddleWay I have read most of this thread and I'm concerned you are trying to move the compass of this community to an untenable position. In your post you state "So while I suspect that the majority of the user base likely has no problem with this as the majority of the user base are atheists, as an agnostic, I feel it's a bit of a "bait and switch" to have a site named agnostic, with the expectation of promoting a balanced view on religion and secular views, but really being about only promoting a secular viewpoint." By your own admission there is a majority here that prescribes to a different definition of the term Agnostic than the one you prefer. You are trying to establish some credibility to your eloquent and persistent argument by referencing the Dawkins scale which includes the whole spectrum of theism. But from what I have observed in my brief time on this site to include contributors on this thread, the definition that is most pervasive here was written by Huxley as follows:

"Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe. Consequently, agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology. On the whole, the "bosh" of heterodoxy is more offensive to me than that of orthodoxy, because heterodoxy professes to be guided by reason and science, and orthodoxy does not.[12]"

—?Thomas Henry Huxley

In my opinion If we include the whole theist spectrum then we will find ourselves besieged by all manner of religious extremists who care not about the scientific method or civil discourse.

@kensmile4u I agree. I do not define agnosticism as a balanced “middle point” between belief and non-belief. Belief in god depends on faith - agnostics aren’t willing to declare certainty one way or the other, therefore they lack faith and thus fall on the spectrum of “non-believer.”

@TheMiddleWay I will have to disagree with you there. The tagline on this site does not include anti-theism. It stops at Atheism. There is a difference. So the tagline is in keeping with Huxley's quote. Please read the link. The significant similarity with many theists and anti-theists is that they are both compelled to activism, attacking, and proselytizing. I can't speak for the creator of this site but my guess is they made a wise decision to narrow the Dawkins spectrum to exclude this kind of uncivil behavior.

[thoughtco.com]

@TheMiddleWay Again I will have to disagree with you. Huxley's quote is vey clear on this matter. It states "Consequently, agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology." Therefore the remaining group of people wisely happen to be listed in the tagline because they are not activists, attackers, or proselytizers. You are torturing Huxley's quote by trying to include the nebulous word religion. Please go back to my link and read everything related to Agnosticism. There is not a single sentence in Huxley's remarks that endorses faith or belief without objective evidence earned through scientific methods. So I am happy to leave the word's "without religion" in the tagline because it promotes clarity.

@TheMiddleWay There is no mention of the word Agnostic or Agnosticism in any of the content you attribute to A. Huxley in this post. Please cite all your sources for peer review.

@TheMiddleWay 1)Here is the source of the quote [en.wikipedia.org] Please look under the section of defining agnosticism at the first quote. 2) I am sourcing Thomas Henry Huxley's specific quote as the pervasive definition I've observed on the site. I never claimed anything beyond the fact that Huxley's other writings on Wikipedia and Thoughtco.com are consistent with the posted quote which brings me to question 3.) I have no idea who you are quoting. Who is -A Huxley? Please provide me a source so I can understand this curious divergent thought from all of T.H. Huxley's work I've read.

@TheMiddleWay That explains a lot. Aldous Huxley was never an Agnostic.

@TheMiddleWay By 'sciience dogma' do you mean scientific method? If not, what?

@TheMiddleWay Thank you for the clarification.

@TheMiddleWay I am in no way assigning certainty to agnostics. I am attributing lack of faith to people who declare that they don’t have faith.

@TheMiddleWay I applaud your persistence but I must say there are only a handful of religious persons out of thousands that I have known in my life who I would trust to remain civil, open minded, and dedicated to critical thinking on this site. Only one of them is a confirmed christian. The rest follow some of the less popular of the 4200 known religions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions). So where would we draw the line to ensure we do not become besieged by activist theists? In my opinion we are letting the tail wag the dog if we allow it. Where is the greater "good" in that? Therefore I have fairly tried to deliberate the pros and cons of religion on this site. Subsequently I'm holding fast to the pervasive definition of agnostic prescribed by T.H.Huxley that excludes religion which I pasted on this thread earlier. Lastly I promise you that I will leave this site if it degenerates to a crusade of people shouting over top of each other.

@TheMiddleWay@TheMiddleWay I have already stated you are torturing Huxley's quote which clearly states " agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology." Your persistence in attacking this quoted line of thought is not observably persuasive based on the responses in this post. You also truncated an important quote attributed to T.H.Huxley which can be read at the following site. [goodreads.com] and here is the full quote. “Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, 'Try all things, hold fast by that which is good'; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic position, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproved today may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, tomorrow. The only negative fixed points will be those negations which flow from the demonstrable limitation of our faculties. And the only obligation accepted is to have the mind always open to conviction.

That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.”

As an educated man I'm sure you can appreciate the importance of full disclosure when presenting supportive material. Any modification could cause a serious reader to suspect sophistry.

Additionally, tucked within Huxley's quote is a quote from Socrates which states 'Try all things, hold fast by that which is good'. I interpret that quote to be applicable to both anecdotal and empirical evidence. So in response to that quote I presented my anecdotal evidence observed through interactions with thousands of religious people. It is important to note here that the scientific method begins with anecdotal evidence as sourced at the following link. [en.wikipedia.org]

So in closing I will use the quote you partially pasted on the site to justify the existing tagline. 1) Religion is a creed. It is not a method. 2) Asking questions about anecdotal evidence (Try all things), developing hypotheses, testing predictions, analyzing data and repeat until you draw statistically significant empirical conclusions (hold fast by that which is good) is the scientific method. Religion stops at develop Hypotheses! You never get to keep the good and throw away the bad in religion! 3) Science is reason based and demonstrable. Many religions are mostly magical, mystical thinking which is not demonstrable. 4) Science has a dynamic refinement loop to facilitate growth toward greater truth. Religion holds static Dogma as truth. 5) Agnosticism reveres evidence. Religion reveres Dogma

In my opinion the persistent torturing of these quotes using dubious semantics is tedious and unpersuasive. So I will respectfully decline to respond to any further invitations on this post. However I do respect your rights to your opinions and I admire your inquisitive spirit. Subsequently I will be glad to converse with you on any other posts. I'm sure we can find agreement on something else.

@silvereyes Exactly. I think I can regard myself as agnostic even though I don't think it's a 50-50 chance one way or the other. (In fact, how many agnostics do think it's a 50-50 chance?) If we're talking about a creator god, then maybe a 1 or 2% chance, I'd say. If we're talking about a god who is actually aware of and interested in humans, I'd say more like a 0.0001% chance.

@David1955 @silvereyes I've decided it really doesn't matter after all, since nobody ever asks me what my views are about god or religion, and I never have to declare myself . The definition is really for me alone, and I prefer to go with agnostic because, as the word implies, I don't know.

@TheMiddleWay You know, that's too complicated for me. I'm going to stick with agnostic de facto atheist. Hope you're OK with that!

I would make broader categories for believer vs agnostic vs atheist. Believers have faith that there is a god, even though they may sometimes doubt their faith. atheists believe there is no god, even in the absence of certainty. Agnostics lack a faith in god but don’t feel strongly that there is not a god.
I’d be curious among agnostics if they are open to the possibility of many gods or subscribe only to the possibility of a single god, either of the Judeo-Christian variety or if the non-interfering creator type.
Dawkins’ scale is interesting to gauge people’s perspective, but is a bit specific for everyday labels.

@A2Jennifer To me the key word here is strongly. How strongly? I feel very strongly (though without absolute certainty) that there is no god of the Judeo-Christian type. I am much more open to the idea of a non-interfering creator but I'm not sure that such a thing really warrants being called a god.

@TheMiddleWay Thanks for further or repeat explanation. I have only this experience with other agnostics and atheists. I have been under the impression that atheists don't doubt their belief that gods don't exist. Where the agnostic was a doubter. I guess the equiprobable term kinda throws me. When answering the questions for signing into agnostic.com I believe there was a what percent did you believe god exists? I think I choose the not very much category .01%.

So guess I am not equiprobable. That would be like 50/50 right? This is very new definition of agnostic to me. If my belief was that the odds were equal between God and no God then I would probably be a God guy. I don't believe there is a god. However I can't prove there is a god, or there isn't a god. Maybe this is a clear cut case of I don't know what the HELL I am. I know I am not on the fence.

I hope you can forgive my ignorance. I am sure I am guilty of simplifying the subject. I think adding religion could hinder this groups development.

Actually, they're are far More atheists here than Agnostic. I am one of the Agnostics, Middleway is an Agnostic, but beyond that, I'm not exactly sure who the Other Agnostics around here are. Haha pretty funny, if you ask me. "Atheists, raise your hands". (site turns into a sea of arms). "Agnostics raise your hands". (after the sounds of the crickets pause, I know for a fact you'd At Least see Two arms in the air). Hahaha. It's like that.

@Leutrelle Also, as one of the Agnostics around here, I actually listed my belief that a god "could exist" in the 1% and that no god exists in the 99% so, how much an agnostic does or doesnt believe that a god could exist is irrelevant. Middleway is listed at 50/50, yet we Both believe the Same thing regarding Agnosticism. The fact that he and I, Both, claim there is no proof for or against a god is not impacted by how much more (or less) each of us feels the probability for either or. The basic belief is the same. The percentages of "belief" have no bearing on the heart of the matter.

@Sadoi Ya I thought that may be the case just from comments I read.

@Leutrelle Agnosticism has NOTHING TO DO WITH BELIEF about the existence of god. It's about knowledge and whether or not it can be obtained. Agnostics are not "undecided" or "on the fence". They are affirmative in their claim that one cannot know whether god exists. If you're talking about beliefs, you're talking about theism or atheism.

@TheMiddleWay I think you are right about doubting both ways although I tend to recognize the doubt of god more. My origin of thought and the reason for the agnostic position was that atheism was another belief. I don't like to say that cause it probably irritates the atheist. I am glad we have had this conversation. It brings back to my original thought.

@Leutrelle yup, and hey, its great that you are curious and asking questions. no question is an ignorant question and curiosity is quite useful in this world.

@JeffMurray Yes you are right. The word belief seems to roll out of my brain easier. I am still not clear why the word belief is taboo. The fence concept does seem like a 50/50 metaphor, and that does not bode well with me. In the moment I am thinking I am a very sloppy agnostic.

@JeffMurray uhh i beg to differ sir. That is not what we are saying at all. We Are on the fence. Both MiddleWay and I already confirmed and hit upon this point. We ARE undecided. Hmm... are you an Agnostic, sir? If so... maybe you can tell me, or even Us @TheMiddleWay what that entails in your opinion because so far, I disagree with Everything, on a whole, that you Just told @Leutrelle. It Has plenty to do with the belief, or disbelief about the existence of god. Yes, i agree with the second sentence, to a point... But the last remainder of your response, i FULL and COMPLETELY disagree with. Hmm... okay... i cannot even... backs away slowly Woa... that was utterly confusing there Jeff. shaking head What Agnostics are you talking to, sir?? Im Very Curious. or did you just hit up some dictionary meaning for "Agnostics and What they Believe?" Hmm... not at all any where close to how it is for me, as an Agnostic. Not at all. Nor does it ring anywhere near close to what Other Agnostics I know, believe. Hmm... alrighty then... have a NICE DAAAAY! (runs for the hills)

@Leutrelle Atheists don't like the word belief because theists try to equate their belief in god based on faith with our belief in no god that has no faith component. I don't need god to not exist. I have no vested interest either way. If he does, and we get undeniable proof, then my worldview changes the same way it would with any other scientific discovery. But to claim I'm "on the fence" or "undecided" is not accurate of my situation. It insinuates I'm trying to make up my mind or I'm searching for evidence or proof. I'm not. My brain has told me the proposition of god is stupid, so I don't believe it (making me an atheist), but I also know I can't possibly know there is no god (making me an agnostic). Other people try to conflate the words 'belief' and 'know' and the concepts 'knowledge of evidence' and 'knowledge of existence'. Trying to defend it they make fallacious arguments. I tried an analogy that was somehow found incomprehensible.

If I find a bloody collar in the road with my dog's tag on it, I have evidence to suggest that he got hit by a car. Depending on the amount of blood, what the weather conditions are, how resilient and old/young it is, if there were foot pints leading anywhere, etc. I can make educated guesses on whether or not my dog is still alive. Based on that evidence, I can believe the dog is still alive, but until I find him dead or alive, I can't KNOW whether or not he's alive. So you can believe something one way or the other without knowing. The only thing that is logically inconsistent is believing something that is incompatible with what you know.

@JeffMurray I have enjoyed the thoughts shared. Now I have some thinking to do.

@TheMiddleWay Dude, are you really that slow? You are creating a false equivalency. Your math analogy isn't a parallel. The ACTUAL parallel would be "If you had no knowledge of a certain field of math and I gave you a problem and solution, and thousands of mathematicians claimed the answer was correct without showing much work, while thousands of other mathematicians showed why those proofs they attempted to use were invalid. Could you claim to believe the solution is right or wrong even though you have no PROOF of the answer?" And the answer is yes, I can believe something based on a preponderance of evidence even though I don't have proof.

@TheMiddleWay I'm sorry for asking if you were slow, that was wrong. I really thought you were trolling. Maybe you are genuine.

The reason it is not parallel is because you can't have the god question in a vacuum like you can the math question. There are hundreds of thousands of experiences mankind has had pitting science and the god question against each other (like believing the sun was a god and that tides were the will of the god of the sea, etc. ad nauseam) The knowledge of these experiences cannot be unlearned, and they most certainly can inform one's decision to believe or not. No one has the same set of experiences, the same physical composition, or biochemical reactions as any other, so all of these things produce different belief outcomes in each individual. To say that any knowledge that can inform your decision invalidates the ability to claim you can't know god doesn't exist is patently false. Similarly, to claim that this same pool of knowledge means that claiming you don't believe is logically inconsistent is also false.

As for your claim that my argument was a fallacy...

First of all, that is not what the argument from authority fallacy states. Again, you don't know your logical fallacies. Maybe look them up before trying to use them in an argument? The fallacy states, "Using an authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument." Last time I checked, mathematicians were authority figures in the field of mathematics.

Secondly, in my parallel, you'd be claiming that one believing that the tides are caused by the moon and not Poseidon is fallacious because they only believe it because scientists told them. Which for everyone is 100% the case. I've never performed, independently without a base of knowledge from any of the world's previous scientists (or technically, any machinery or measurement apparatus that others claim works in the way they say) to determine what causes the tides. (Which again, is not a logical fallacy because scientists of that field would be authority figures.)

As for your claim that trusting experts (i.e. having faith that what they say is true) is also not parallel because their knowledge can be gained by others and verified. They have reproducible evidence for their claims and they can, and have, been independently verified. You can't really be suggesting that lay people who believe the sun is a ball of burning gasses are doing so fallaciously?

So, to me at least, the preponderance of evidence is that for thousands of years, many of the things mankind has attributed to the powers of god have been scientifically explained. Furthermore, looking at the trajectory of scientific discovery, it is feasible that all but one other proposition, which is, insofar as I can surmise, possibly just a man-made contradiction that won't likely be conquered by scientific discovery, and that is the dichotomy of the line vs the first law of thermodynamics, could be answered by science. All this, at least to me, is an overwhelming amount of evidence that god does not exist, but is obviously not proof that he doesn't. Hence, I don't believe god exists (atheist) but I can't know for certain he doesn't (agnostic).

@TheMiddleWay NO. IT. DOESN'T. Again, you are conflating knowledge of evidence with knowledge of the thing you have evidence for. And here is where I use your own words to prove to everyone else, but probably not you, that you are wrong. You stated, "Having a 'preponderance of the evidence' is not being 'without knowledge'." The preponderance of evidence I cited in this instance was scientific explanations of things once attributed to god which we are all aware of and cannot unlearn (e.g. believing the sun was a god and that the tides were caused by a god). Things you most certainly know. So, since you claim, "Having a 'preponderance of the evidence' is not being 'without knowledge'" it is no longer possible for you to claim you are agnostic!

You can't have it both ways. Either the evidence I cited is enough knowledge that you can't claim to be agnostic, meaning since you have said knowledge you can't claim to be agnostic, -OR- it isn't enough knowledge that you can no longer claim to be agnostic meaning my claim that I am an agnostic atheist is logically valid -OR- you pretend to be so ignorant that you don't possess the knowledge I cited in my example that you claimed prevented agnosticism. So which is it? Wrong, wrong, or mind-numbingly ignorant?

@TheMiddleWay That's not an ad hominem, that was a question of which of the three possible outcomes you were choosing? Are you saying it's an ad hominem to ask someone to recognize their position is wrong?

"in light of the knowledge you posses that informs your atheism, it makes sense to claim atheism but no sense to claim agnosticism."
But you possess that that same knowledge; you are saying that you shouldn't be able to claim agnosticism, but that's all you claim. Why does your conclusion say you can't do the exact thing you do?

"because there is no atheism (or theism) that exists without basis of knowledge, gnostic atheism or theism makes sense"
Similarly, you say that any belief or even lack of belief carries a base knowledge that precludes one from claiming agnosticism, yet that's the very thing you do.

@TheMiddleWay

I do not claim an absence of evidence is the same as evidence of absence. That is a formal fallacy: denying the antecedent. If A, then B, Not A, Not B. I am claiming that the evidence itself is evidence of absence (but not proof). For instance, what we've learned about the evolutionary process is evidence that there isn't an outside force acting on it. We know how it works and don't see things that contradict it. Regardless of all of that, this still means you continue to conflate knowledge of evidence god doesn't exist and knowledge that god doesn't exist. I don't know if we agree on this or not, but I don't believe it is accurate to claim I believe something I know (I would just say I know X), so I think we at least agree that it is nonsensical to be a gnostic [a]theist. I think 'know' and 'believe' are distinct words that convey different levels of certainty. Of course, we disagree on everything else, so I probably shouldn't have added one more thing to argue about onto the pile.

So you really have no beliefs whatsoever that are based on evidence for which you don't have proof? Like you would never say, "I believe the Golden State Warriors are going to make the playoffs."

@TheMiddleWay Sorry it took so long to respond. There's a lot to unpack there.

First of all, for someone who is calling out the agnostic atheist for oxymoronic [redundant] wording, I can't understand why you would use the phrase Justified True Belief. A. If it's true, of course it's justified. B. If it's true I don't think it's a belief any longer, it's knowledge. (Edit: which after finishing the post and adding the definitions, it appears that is actually the definition for 'knowledge'.) Furthermore, I don't know why you'd label your belief that the Steelers would make it to the Superbowl as a JTB (read: knowledge) when it was, in fact, a false belief.

At the beginning of your response to the belief question you claimed you don't have that luxury, then went on to explain that you do, in fact, have beliefs based on the evidence you've observed about things you couldn't know. So you believed the Steelers would make it to the Superbowl based on what you learned, but you couldn't know for sure they would. I don't see how this is not an exact parallel to how people who label themselves agnostic atheists feel. You may claim that what you learned about the concept of god doesn't count as evidence at all, but it absolutely could for others (we don't all share experiences, brains, and brain chemistry). So just like you believed the Steelers would make it to the Superbowl, I don't believe there is a sentient god that created the universe, yet we both know we can't possibly know these things.

"the whole 'I don't know that I'm right' is part and parcel of any belief"
Of course, that goes without saying, but that's not what we mean by agnostic. We aren't saying, "but I may be wrong" or "I don't know", we're saying, "but I know I can't know". That is a very important distinction. Maybe this is why you think all combinations of [a]gnostic and [a]theist are redundant, when in fact it's only the gnostic theist.

Do you agree that 'atheist' probably shouldn't need to be a word? We don't have words for people who don't believe in other propositions there's no evidence for. What is the name for people who don't believe stuffed animals become animated while you're sleeping? If that became a prevalent belief, however, especially as prevalent as a belief in god, we would probably come up with one. Same is true for 'agnostic' I suppose. Why do you need to claim you know you can't have knowledge about something NO ONE has knowledge about? Do we have a name for a person who can turn himself inside-out? No, because no one can. These are seemingly silly words, yet they exist and are extremely prevalent, popular, and emotive. You spent several minutes typing out what you knew would be my rebuttal, yet didn't see why it was so important. You seem like a guy that likes to avoid confusion, yet knowing there is the potential for confusion on this point, you dismiss it as "oxymoronic", redundant, or unnecessary. 'Atheist' and 'agnostic' have different meanings and deal with different things. And regardless of whether or not you think they are always redundant instead of just redundant in certain combinations, they have become vital in helping to define ourselves. I'd like to point out that this very issue has dominated hours per day for weeks now, and I'm quite certain this site is not the first time you've spent an exorbitant amount of time on this topic, yet even in a room primarily filled with people who identify as one or more of the following, we can't agree. Doesn't that speak volumes about how vitally important it is to use the words we already have defined to be as clear and specific as possible, regardless of whether or not we think it may technically be redundant, especially if we are going to try to use these labels with the general public as well?

Definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary
True: In accordance with fact or reality.
Knowledge: Philosophy True, justified belief; certain understanding, as opposed to opinion.
Believe: Accept that (something) is true, especially without proof.
Agnostic: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
Atheist: A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

@AMGT @Leutrelle

@TheMiddleWay Should I wait for you to respond to the rest before I reply?

@JeffMurray W/O a vote I think you two are stuck in a draw.

@TheMiddleWay Well I guess some one has to do it

Oooh that one is REALLY Good, as well!

Or "Agnostic.com The name is irrelevant because we mostly talk about attributes of potential gods, spirits, ghosts, and other metaphysical nonsense... when were not arguing over simple definitions that is."

@TheMiddleWay I was reading your response and as I got to the bottom and I'm reading aloud, I began thinking, "why is this familiar... Wait a minute... Wait a minutes... It's THE FACTS OF LIFE!". That is too much Tootie! Watch where you're going on those skates! You might run over someone's dogma! Sorry I'm still at work. Will respond more after I'm off the slave ship. I just had to respond to this, though, because I haven't laughed THIS HARD in weeks! I laugh, but Not like That!

@TheMiddleWay oh, I got it okay! I lost my shit, thats how well I got it! I was laughing so hard I curled up in a ball because my ribs started to hurt after a few minutes of cackling!

@TheMiddleWay and that whole laughing event took place at work. I couldnt even stop to take a breath to explain to my co-workers what the hell was wrong with me! I tried, profusely, but it was impossible. So i gave up and laid down on one of the patient beds in the back office where I was doing charts because I couldn't stop. I sounded like a freakin donkey hee hawing! Im telling you, I have HONESTLY not laughed THAT hardcore in a long while! When I finally caught my breath and explained to my co-workers Why I was laughing as I was, they couldn't even understand. They didn't get it. I said the punchline repeatedly, "You know... The Facts of LIFE?? You take the good...? You take the bad...?? No...? No takers?" They did not get it. I suppose you are double correct. I Am the only one who gets that reference!

Oh well, you can KNOW that it was not lost on me! Fuck! You are so freakin funny, man! You're killin me smalls!

@TheMiddleWay and, based on our ages, we Were there. haha

I am not religious. Not in the slightest. As an agnostic, my stance is, I could never be so arrogant to claim Atheism because the title of "atheist" is finite. Since, I cannot prove the existence Of god nor against god, it is arrogant of me, personally in my own mind, to use such an absolute. I cannot deal in Absolutes because the truth is, I have no proof either way. I cannot say there Is no God because I've yet to see Any valid proof Of A god or of Gods. However, who is to say that some where down the line... say decades down the line, someone or something comes along with an entirely new thread of intelligence and within that thread, something tangible can be proved... something beyond that which I would even know would be enough to cause me to switch to belief, and if there was some way to validate the existence of a god or of a supreme being, I Would Then be Wrong all my life to have taken a stance of Absolutes. In that, I leave Open the possibility because I am not vain enough to Claim I Know anything for a Fact. Just because I have never felt the "hand of god" nor seen "visions of god" nor heard the "voice of god" doesn't tell me, exactly, that no god exists. Sure, one could say the reason those things have nevere occured is because that Is Proof that there Is No God. Just because you cannot prove the existence of something doesnt mean it does not exist. I am open to the possibility of Change. I mean, lets look at how far humanity has come in the last thousands of years... in the last centuries, last Decades. We are making leaps and bounds in science, in intellect, not so much in the areas of wisdom, but in the ways of intellectual prowess, we are moving along nicely. Likewise, we are still right out of the womb and into the diapers by way of our intellectual evolution. Hence, who Can say once our minuscule little human brains evolve more, we Might find something conclusive that Could say, "yeah, there could be a creator" or "there Is a creator." For those reasons, alone, I could not and would not claim atheism. I do Not know. And the Wisest words I EVER learned Were and Are "I Don't Know." It is honest. It is clear. It doesn't say, "i bury my heels in the sand and make this claim, all or nothing!" No way. I'm far too intelligent for that. (hee hee hee)

@AMGT I fully respect your position, too. In my Personal experience, as an Agnostic, I have had many, rather unsavory conflicts with atheist who find my position as an agnostic to be weak. They view my preference to choose No option presented to me as a cop out by saying "Maybe there is a god. Maybe there isn't a god." Its almost akin to being a bi-sexual in a lesbian bar. We get horrible grief because they claim we "cannot make up our minds." In my experience, atheists have tended to come at me with this sense of "Absolutes" and if I do not adhere to those same tennants, they find it is their right to scoff at my "inability" As they claim, to make a choice one way or the other. I rarely have the joy of meeting other atheists or agnostics in my day to day life in the way I have here so my exposure hasn't be vast, but the ones I have had to deal with, atheists, they were typically coming at me from a place of arrogance and of certainty that they Knew there was no god and if I doubted the existence of God, I should refer to myself as "atheist." In my life, that has been the plight of my atheistic adventures. Hence, why I draw from that conclusion. However, here, on this site, most of my current circle are Atheist and not Agnostic, at least not Agnostic in the ways I am. The closest person to reflecting my beliefs would be MiddleWay. And just as I am an agnostic, open to all possibilities, I am Also open to the possibility of meeting some Atheists who aren't judgemental asses. haha!! I must admit, it helps to speak to actual atheists that are open minded. This forum has also been a great way to communicate and express various beliefs with a broad range of people. I speak Only from my personal experience, and in my personal experience, most of my encounters with other Atheists (usually in med school) has been hostile, condescending and aggressive. I was placed into positions where I was made to defend my own personal beliefs. That is why I have the viewpoint I possess. It is through my experiences that I have come to feel this way. However, I am also open to and willing to experience change. I will respect anyones rights so long as they are mindful of my own. Thus far, I was rarely respected by Atheists, merely spoken down to, as though my belief was invalid, therefore, unimportant in light of their Vast Knowledge to the Contrary and of my lack of willingness to Pick a Side, so to speak.

@Sadoi To be clear, I wasn't referring to you in my response to the question posed.

Like @AMGT, I don't see being an atheist as an arrogant and absolute position. It wouldn't even occur to me to stick to that label if evidence showed I was wrong.

In general, many people on here get mired in semantics about their definition of atheist or agnostic and manage to get into heated arguments over it.

@shockwaverider yeah, i am no fan of arguments. I thought we were merely discussing terminology here, as well. I think its just that those of us who feel slightly different would also like to feel represented. Often times we have had some rather negative experiences out there in a world dealing with Atheists who seem to undermind our positions as agnostics. It isn't something I have only recently experienced. I began switching over to a non-god belief in my late teens, but it fully took hold while I was attending UCLA school of Neuro-psych. All my peers were non-believers, atheists, and when I began there, I was still a devout believer and eventually I transitioned to atheist, then I read more and realized I was agnostic. Once I switched over to Agnostic, all hell broke loose in my Atheistic circle of friends. I was literally harrassed over those things for most of my years At UCLA so when I come out of the corner as I have, and perhaps I sound as though im saying 'thems fightin words,' the truth is, I am not. My opinion is based upon the countless times I was ganged up on by hoards of atheists. I simply wanted my perspective to be respected just as I opted to respect Their perspectives, but that never seemed to happen. This is probably why I have a sour taste in my mouth any time the subject of Atheist Vs Agnostic pops up. Perhaps I had the misfortune of dealing with some rather unsavory atheists, but either way, it has been in my experience that the respect went one way. Hence, why I react as I do. Sure, with time and exposure to more atheists with open minds and equal respect for my beliefs, things would begin to change and manifest differently inside of my head. I already have such Strong Respect for So many people here that I can Truly say this experience has been refreshing, eye opening and pleasant. I have never met this many atheists in one place that generally allow me my beliefs without jumping down my throat with two combat boots on. These are the types of things that alter someones thinking, like myself. It will take time, but I have hope that it is possible Because Of the awesome people I am currently mixing and mingling with. I believe at this point, we've already figured out what it would take to quell this budding issue and it sounds agreeable enough to me. My hope in being a member here is to grow and to learn from our differences, to allow it to remold my perceptions and to evolve with other likeminded individuals. I am Enjoying the process of learning from others in this platform. I Like that i get no shit or grief over what I Say I believe. For me, I was just wanting it to be made crystal clear that We Are here and that we want the same things. Other than that, im having a blast here and beyond semantics, I am pleased as punch with everyone I have met, thus far, minus one... loose cannon whose name seems to evade my mind at this moment. Only one jerk, though, out of dozens more. These, to me, are GOOD RATIOS! hahaha

@AMGT the position that atheist takes is that there certainly is no God, period. Not that if proof were provided, positions would change because under those terms one could easily be considered an Agnostic. Most of the atheist I have encountered, their stance is that there is no God, they also leave no room for the possibility because to be open to the possibility would ruin contrary to their beliefs as an atheist. This is why I came to identify myself as Agnostic because I cannot logically say there is/are no god (s) even though at this phase in my life, I see no proof to support that theory. Despite that, I am still open to the possibility, hence I cannot commit myself to atheism. When I did claim atheism, I was starting there is no God. There was no room in that belief system to say "if and when there's is a way to validate such a thing As God, I would believe.". Atheism flat out, says there is no God, not there may be no god, and i simply do not know for sure. To me, that Is taking a stance of absolutes. I'm not saying in some far away future, if the existence of a supreme being were too be totally provable that other atheist wouldn't change their tunes. I'm saying that, to me, making a clear and concise decision that there is undoubtedly no god seems arrogant because, again, For me, that's a mighty risky move full of certainty in the face of the possibility that Just because we correctly have no proof of a God does not mean there is Absolutely no god. And the atheists I Have encountered have fought me rabidly, tooth and nail, saying I was ignorant to even leave open the door to the potential ideology that a god "could" exist and I was unwilling to say I Know There Is/Are No God(s). I could never bring myself to completely closing the door on possibilities. Just because we cannot currently Prove the existence of God is not valid enough proof that this is a truism. If I were to claim atheism, that would be my claim. Not that If somewhere down the line proof is brought before me, I will change my tune. That would be more akin to being an Agnostic and not an atheist. I am unwilling to say for the remainder of my life that without proof of God,I simply will dismiss it as non existent. Instead, I choose the more Open ended claim of I cannot prove the existence or non existent of god, therefore I take the stance of "I don't know" either way. Again, for Me, Personally, that is arrogant simply because the fact that there is No proof of something existing doesn't mean it is Absolutely not possible. And it really is a point of semantics. To me, I see it as being cocksure, putting all your eggs into one "absolute" basket by saying there is no God, period. Not that there is no God, to the best of my knowledge because that leaves open the possibility for a "maybe" and atheists do not see a maybe in existence. I, however, do say there is a maybe and for me to Personally, claim otherwise would lend to my psyche a feeling of arrogance by staying an Absolute, as in:. There is No God.

As for the atheists of my past, oh geez, I could tell you horror stories about the battles they would provoke out of me. It was on the Daily that they came at me. They would look For reasons to bring up my Agnostic beliefs as a point of weakness. They would try to convince me it was ignorant to leave open the possibility for a supreme being in the face of the blaring lack of proof. To me, their beliefs in the opposite were Equitably ignorant to me. So to be honest, you and I may never see eye to eye on this. I Do understand where you are coming from, and you, as a person, I consider kind and you've always been nothing but genuine toward me, so yeah, I'm not keen on having to cause you any grief over my position and personal opinion, but this Is how I perceive it and for the very reasons you feel your stance is accurate and correct, I, likewise, feel the same about my own. Do I, personally, believe you are an arrogant person by nature? From what I've witnessed of you here at this forum, no, I wouldn't say You are specifically arrogant in nature. However in regards to atheism, yes, I do believe it is an arrogant claim to make because it is an absolute. Whether or not your opinion would change at a latter day if and when proof could be collected and validated is irrelevant at this point in the conversation because that is currently a moot point. However, I would personally rather take the stance of "it's possible" now, this early in the game, so that if and when it ever Did come to pass that a god existed, my Agnostic belief would have been accurate all along. For me, to claim otherwise is me claiming an absolute otherwise, I would be an Agnostic, not an atheist.

I'm not wanting to argue anyone's beliefs. I am merely stating My Personal belief in the matter and to me, in my mind (my mind, not anyone else's) I do see it as arrogant to choose to crush All possibility with no proof to support either the existence or non existent of a God. As for the friends I have around here that are atheists, on a personal level, I utterly enjoy them, I Respect Them, you as well. I Respect your rights and opinions Even If I do not agree with them on a whole. Likewise, the same can be said of my position. You may not agree with it, you may take offense to my beliefs and the wording (semantics) Of my beliefs, but that is the beauty of being a part of the world and if this community. We May Not always agree, but that in no way should be taken personally because I am not attempting to slight you. I could be no more guilty of defending my stance as you could be of defending yours. I don't want you to think I'm coming down on All atheists, because I am not. I am merely giving my personal view on the matter at hand. My hope is that we can move Beyond this discussion and learn to tolerate and understand one another better, whether or not we agree with one another.

@AMGT sorry there may be many typos in my response because I'm trying to text this all out in a cell phone, which I loathe to do, and I'm rushing to respond to you, specifically, while racing to get ready for the gym, then for work. Basically in in a total rush and didn't even have time to proof read before I sent. Hopefully it will be coherent and will make sense despite my complete distraction while typing it up and they potential for auto incorrect. Lol

@David1955 I'm sorry I was hoping to have time to respond to you as well, but alas, I am out of time! In the interim, please reference my response to AMGT. thank you.

@AMGT What source told you there’s limits or bounds on the label atheist?

Uhh the dictionary definition of the word atheist, as well as the meaning of that title in and of the circle of atheists. Atheists, Directly. Otherwise, it would be agnosticism, not atheism.

@David1955 We're I an agnostic, I'd also have to be agnostic about the Islamic God, the Jewish God, the God Apollo and all the rest. Or, is agnostic just about the Christian God?

This is also a moot point since any godhead I could stand behind has yet to be represented by Any man made religion. All and none of those gods are and are not included. I personally believe all religions are man made, born of Mans mind and not of a supreme being, in my opinion. Thusly, if a supreme being did exist, I don't, seriously, believe that we have heard from it via holy texts because I view All religious texts as Non Points. I see them as written By and For man. I see those gods about as realistic as I would see superheros like Batman, the hulk, Green lantern, Wonder woman, et Al. Hence, I needn't cover them in my beliefs as an Agnostic. Any supreme being, I suspect, that if it existed, we have yet to hear From it directly. No way in hell would it echo the belief system of Males of that time period, mainly. Most religious texts were certainly not written for or about females. Therefore, my theory is that Only a man could be so cocky as to come up with a vast majority of the dogmatic garbage. I would assume we couldn't even begin to gauge the mind of Any supreme being and in that, it is almost ridiculous to believe Any God would be such a cruel, sexist pig as is depicted in most religious texts.

I needn't pick Any man made gods in order to claim agnosticism. That has little to no bearing on my beliefs as an Agnostic. I am unsure how you came to such a conclusion, to be honest.

I would then have to say ideem religious texts to be true. I do not. I do not believe Any religion/religious texts on the face of this planet, currently or in our theological past, is true or valid. Hence, they have no bearing on my beliefs as an agnostic or an atheist. Any god, in my opinion, that could exist, has yet to be represented by any human being in the history of our experience.

This is a moot point.

@TheMiddleWay we don't have to agree down the line, friend. Again, i consistently repeated, "in my personal experience" and "from my life experiences, in My opinion" because in My Lifetime, I have mostly dealt with the latter sort of Atheist. The arrogant, asshole who is as extreme as a devout theist. As I also stated repeatedly, having found a site of this nature, with a more accurate representation of Actual Atheists of all mental shapes and sizes has aided to Help me begin to reform my opinions. Even still, I do consider claiming either Theism or Atheism an Absolute and in that, i consider it a flaw of logic and I consider Both arrogant to say you Know For A Fact. That is impossible, in my Agnostic mind. Just because I will Not agree with them on this one point of contention doesn't mean i consider them, on a whole, to be arrogant foolish assholes. This is, again, my opinion Only when it comes to atheism. Their arguments will not change my perceptions at this time, hence, either we can agree to disagree (me and those who've taken offense to my point of view) or they can move on along and limit their contact with me. I do still stand by my statement. I knew from the get-go it could easily be a lonely, one woman perch, but I would rather speak the truth of what "I Believe" rather than tip-toe around others here who Could take offense. It is easy to be offended. Defend yourself then and Expect me to defend myself also. This is a moot point. I will not convert over to send out apologies for my perceptions and, likewise, I do not expect that from any of them in return. If they take it as a personal slight in All they Are as a human being, that is them superimposing an assumption upon my words/my point. I have said time and time again, this is a Personal Opinion, yet it still seems to continue to arise. I also stated I am beginning to experience Healthy Atheist friends and perhaps certain things I feel Will change, but my belief that it is arrogant to go to one extreme or the other Applies in All Areas of my life. Any friends of mine who drink too much or overeat or become obsessive about one thing or another, I consider them ignorant and IF they attempt to argue in favor of An Extreme point of view or Action, I consider them arrogant to take such a stance of "Absolute Truth" in Any Area. This isnt just true of me in regards to "atheist/agnostic" topics. I am okay if I am the lone wolf on this one. I cannot deny it is how I feel and I refuse to lie about it, either. Perhaps it will change in time, perhaps it will not. Either way, it has nothing to do with attacks on anyones Person. If offense on ones belief is taken so dramatically, well, again, toughen up. People like me Do exist and we have a right to feel as we do, equally. I made this bed, MW, and I am more than willing to lay in it. Im a tough girl. I Can take it. I have utmost respect for you and, i don't need a "Saviour." haha! Pun Intended. I just feel at this point, myself and those in disagreement with me need to simply agree we will Not see eye to eye on this. Period. My personal experiences have made me who I am. I am Still young enough to know I Can and will change and expand, but as for now, this Is what I feel. shrugs It is what it is.

I agree and my vote is for the former.

Since none of us will Ever see every ideal/belief eye to eye, it is the latter that must be born of this. We must find a way to mesh, to blend, to be accepting of all trains of thought, belief systems... i mean, if anything atheist and agnostics are cousins. We are like vulcans and romulans (minus the romulans pesky assholishness haha). We have the same root ancestor and that shouldn't make us enemies nor on opposite sides of the team. I believe we need the melting pot. I mean, if not within one another, who can we trust here? I don't know, but I enjoy the friends I have met here, you included my friend, and in such, I want to Blend maaan! Bleeeend!! But, i do still want to be noted for My Beliefs as well, even if it is not the norm around here.

@silvereyes Likewise, I was the same as you, at one time, too. I referred to myself as an Atheist, until I began to truly study the differences between the two. Yes, often things are drowned out in the semantics, as you made mention. I believe since these systems of belief are So similar, we have commonground already, hence, let us include both perspectives equally. I sooo agree with you on Abrahamic religions, especially as a woman, I take even greater offense to it. Dogma makes me craazy! I am sure we will be able to find a way to blend together. There are the early days of this site, it would seem, so naturally there are going to be wrinkles that need ironing out, but I have ultimate faith in the admin here, and Mostly in its members, to lend the belief that things Will change, we Wont be discouraged due to the differences in our core beliefs and that we will find ways to compliment one another as opposed to finding differences to wedge between us. The one thing most of us share on this site, and the biggest saving grace out there, is/are the High Intelligence Ratios of its members here at agnostic.com, along with the openminded nature of its members equally. I suspect we can Easily transition beyond these simple disagreements and find a more vast platform from which we can share and exchange and grow together as site-mates. If anything, this site has already helped to open my eyes to a variety of things I'd yet to contemplate. It has served to give me some tangible relationships and experiences that Are aiding in molding my perspectives and I have become enlightened by some of the minds I have found, thus far. These things are All Good and Useful and I look forward to growing even more with the help of my friends here.

@TheMiddleWay I actually just made mention of this not being solely how I function when it comes to religion or lack thereof. I do not reserve my opinion that 'All forms of extremes are dangerous' to Just this topic. I see it in all manner of day to day life. All Extremes, Any Extremes, I find flaw with.