@David1955 Blah, blah. Blah.
WE have no evidence?
Neither do YOU.
Come back and see us when you do.
There is no evidence either way.
Is that so hard to understand?
The gnosis of unbelief
Is exactly the same as belief
So you and your enemies are one.
We have no enemies.
Or, maybe you BOTH are.
I don't know.
I DO know THAT.

@David1955 I'm sorry but you engaged ME. It's the old "evidence" thingie. You seem to think I need evidence there IS a god (I'm not at all convinced there IS), but YOU need no evidence there ISN'T one (or two, or five billion trillion).
I have no desire to argue with you or anyone else, but you keep insisting we're practicaly cousins, and I wholeheartedly disagree. I'm not even in the same galaxy.
The poster asked a question and I was trying to answer. The only way to do so is to mention you and yours. If you want to say something, by all means, but, I'm going to respond.
I wish you were agnostic. Sorry I'm yet another reason you're not.

@David1955 It's to the point: the two mindsets are completely different. The fact we're both "anti-religion" isn't the right way to look at it, in my opinion. Atheism is much closer to theism than to agnosticism. Both are "belief syatems" with absolutist viewpoints.
Some people HAVE to KNOW, even about something as unknowable as "god."
That need must box a person in and narrow his or her vision. I feel I see the world around me so much more clearly when I keep my mind open.
Atheists are always talking about a prospective god as an entity, a being, with a separate consciousness, especially the Abrahamic ones but it applies to all religions; they all anthropomorphise. What do I think of? Nothing, really. Certainly not a PERSON!
Anyway, I hate to compare atheists and theists, but I hate it even more when an atheist talks as if agnostics are somehow "atheist-lite," like we're going to wake up one day, snap our fingers and go, "Oh yeah! Now I get it!"
Maybe some do, but I have a feeling more are moving in the opposite direction.
And no, I doubt religion will ever "win" in the long run...but, you never know!

@David1955 I don't think I make false generalizations. If anything, a lot of self-proclaimed 'atheists' are really agnostic' and mislabel themselves. I think they regard "agnostics" as too wishy washy, not macho and shocking enough, not appealing enough to their sense of the dramatic...'Atheist' is more rebellious, in-your-face anti-establishment, more of a clean break with societal norms! Am I wrong? (Btw, I'm about as radically anti-establishment as they get.)
But for the sake of discussion, what generalizations are you talking about?
Look, the reason this subject comes up so frequently is because atheists won't stop making insulting false generalizations about agnostics, not the other way around. We're not going to let you get away with it.
As far as there being far more 'atheists' on here, I agree, and like theists they're more stridently loud, sarcastic, and obnoxious. But like I said, some of it is branding. They think 'atheist' is sexier.
Well, I guess that's why some people like the Raiders, not the Dolphins. I just like good football.

@David1955 Okay, I WILL remain as I am, thank you. I've been one my entire life.
I didn't know my thoughts weren't original...that's disappointing, but that just goes to show I'm not the only one who has the impressions I happen to have. I'll just add, atheists DO always refute any possibility of the existence of 'god' by saying no PERSONAL god-entity---who answers prayers and even knows we exist, etc.---is possible, which is a sentiment I wholeheartedly share, as do ALL agnostics. But atheists insist on setting up this straw dog to shoot down CONSTANTLY. It's extremely annoying.
But that's one of those unoriginal things I harp on...well it's true.
One final thing: I WOULD envy the "clarity" of atheism if there was any chance said clarity was justified, but it is not. That "confidence" is the same confidence of any deluded true believer, including Christians. They are supremely confident in their lord and saviour, and like atheists they enjoy a totally bogus "clarity" which is obviously misplaced.
That's ALL agnostics are saying. You have no evidence there is no god by any definition. You stick the "entity" label on the subject and insist that's the only one relevant, and it is not.
So anyway, enjoy your inappropriate confidence in your clarity. I'll just stagger along with the burden of my insecure sense of the mystery of it all and try to get by.

@thaywth Religious faith is rooted in delusion.
Delusion is a symptom of mental illness.

Enough credible, verifiable evidence exists to disprove most religious claims.
There is ample scientific proof to make rejecting all religious claims the most logical path to take.

Religious faith us a deliberate mental illness.
People stubbornly cling to the shackles of their delusions when freedom of the mind is readily available.

There's nothing remotely "radical" about it.

I am right there with you!

Good job injecting Iowa common sense into the gibberjabbers for xian Webster lies....the dictionary is wrong....we are proper noun Atheists and it is the xian and his xmas that is living deluded in a a world crusading for an alleged vaginal virgin birthing an alleged baby gawd on December 25th each year IN A DIRTY DONKEY STABLE....and their are several shrines in Europe each with their alleged foreskins AMPUTATED PREPUCE flesh of their non-existent alleged baby gawd geebush jeehobah yhwh ghostholes

@GreenAtheist The Christians hijacked so many pagan holidays in order to make the locals worship their "God" and today's Christians don't even understand that if Jesus was born at all, it was not in December.

@misstuffy xians&xmas not much difference between bible believers and KKK believers burning crucifixes....burning in hell or being lynched is still terrorism

@GreenAtheist I agree, did you see where this school was letting Christians go in at lunch to preach to kids in a PUBLIC SCHOOL????

@misstuffy Pella Iowa schools have been doing this crap for 30 years....as long as no one complains or brags about it to the news.....school kids ARE NOT SAFE from Betsy deVos or any criminal theocrat

@misstuffy over in DeSoto a Jewish man won protection from Gideons forcing his daughter to sign her name in their bibles handed out to all in her class.... as soon as she graduated from elementary school the criminals came back and forced kids to do it again....1984 to 1987 only 3 years safe from these pornographic misogynistic genocidal incest anti-science "books" are shoved into kids hands

@LimitedLight nah then it’s just time to walk away. I’ll teach elementary school if they want to pay me for it.

Maybe god IS the natural world, has no consciousness at all.
Or a Collective Consciousness.
Or Unconsciousness.
And/or maybe ther are other dimensions our five senses and the most sensitive of our instruments cannot detect.
Maybe a lot of things.
Maybe not.
Maybe what I'm saying is pure gibberish.
Maybe its pure genius.
How would you know?

@Storm1752 The 'god' we think exists works by magic. There is no magic in the universe. Just because we can't explain something doesn't mean it follows some rule.

For religious people if something can't (or hasn't yet) be explained they automatically assume it's magic from a god. Imagine if you could go back in time (which you can't) and took your cell phone to the 15th century. You would be considered a god. The people would see the phone as having magical powers. Most of us can't explain how it works but it does and it follows physical principles.

inexistence does not need evidence, because to prove inexistence is impossible and you do not have to prove inexistence, but the existence must be proved. If you claim that something is there you need to prove it, here I don't have to prove that something is not there if you can't prove that it is there.

@David1955 It is a 50/50 argument. I use the Dawkins approach and that is also used by Matt Dillahunty on the Atheist Experience TV program. To claim something as 100 percent truth it is up to you to produce evidence. The idea of "proving a negative" shows your mind is made up already. Don't let this fool you. I do not believe in gods. You will have to show me evidence.

There's no "scientific evidence" either way.

@Storm1752 sure there is. Every testable claim made by theists has been falsified or the effects show no greater probabilities than chance or placebo. There are piles of this. Is it proof? No but when evidence is expected to be somewhere and it isnt that is disconfirming evidence.

@TheMiddleWay sure give me the example to counter it. If you've got a relevant testable claim id love to see it. Until thatnis provided I'm happy to say every testable claim. Because if there actually was one theists woukd be pointing that shit out left amd right. There would be non stop news stories amd someone woukd get a novel prize. My confidence that I'm right is high.

I agree; but be careful with that phrasing in front of believers, because they’ll immediately say “oh so it’s your belief, and that requires just as much faith without knowledge as mine does.” A more bulletproof way to phrase it might be “because I do not believe in any god.” It’s our lack of beliefs without evidence, not our belief in a negative statement that defines our position.

@Wurlitzer
You are right. I could change my statement but do not want to. Why should I worry about what others think when I do not plan to get into an argument? If I do, I will say that is my belief and I will not argue and I will not change my mind. You keep your belief and I will keep mine.

@St-Sinner But agnostics don't HAVE beliefs about god.

@Storm1752
Don't atheists not believe the existence of God?

@Storm1752 sure You do.you either believe or you don't. Its a dichotomy. You just don't have to label yourself.

I too believe we humans are all connected. We have evolved and become more educated to know more and more about who we are and our position in the universe. Unfortunately humans are still chained to the dream of the supernatural and an immaterial existence after death. Yes, we each believe we have a human spirit, but to believe that this spirit continues to exist after we die is a delusion. And for what purpose, but to never forget our life on earth? GROG

In this universe we Atheists every human is born an Atheist with zero religion inherited into brains or sex organs.....we are localized order in an expanding cooling universe....we heat by eating or warming next to a heat source like a parent furnace or sunroof letting light in and keeping cold out....our species exerts great localized control over matter like beaver dams spiderwebs silken cocoons nesting birds or nursing moms....reality should not be telescoped or microscoped.....our perspective must always be rational not sentimental

I will say that the only thing that could possibly convince me that a god exists, is god itself, no book, no preacher, no human, and to date no god has made any attempt to do that for me.

@jlynn37 Same here. I used to pray for evidence, but … crickets. Once I got so bold as to say, "God, if you exist, show me by striking me with lightening." I'm here decades later to tell you it never happened.

Huxlean Agnosticism isnt the only definition of agnostic and certainly not the oldest.

@Stuttrboy

Based on what? Huxley's coinage of Agnosticism is literally where the word came from.

@DZhukovin the term was coined by Huxley but it was used used by Greeks and early Christians. The ideas were echoed in Hindu philosophy and English translations referred to it as agnostic. Aristotle Aquinas Descartes etc all talked about it and while the word was sometimes used it was never mainstream. Huxley just made it popular.

@Stuttrboy Greeks and early Christians didn't use that word, because the time period being referenced is before the coinage of the word "Agnostic". Remember, no one here is talking about meanings. "Word" is what is being talked about, here.

@DZhukovin the word was used but it wasn't mainstream. They weren't labeling anything as agnosticism like Huxley did. The word existed before he created his Agnosticism capital A.

@Stuttrboy It changes absolutely nothing. It's the true source of the word. Your assumption is based on the idea that if a person cannot process the definition for whatever reason, then it can create an understanding. It's nonsensical.

What we CAN do is play with "is" dynamics, and talk about how the definition is, necessarily, an effect of an image that can be pieced together.

@DZhukovin it was originally used as the negation of the knowledge claim particularly from a religious point of view. This definition is still in common usage. Huxley even acknowledges this. I quote:

"I further say that Agnosticism is not properly described as a "negative" creed, nor indeed as a creed of any kind, except in so far as it expresses absolute faith in the validity of a principle, which is as much ethical as intellectual. This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: that it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty. That is what agnosticism asserts and, in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism."

This is the null proposition. He talks about certainty aka the knowledge claim and calls it unproven. Its where he takes it after that that he falls apart.

@Stuttrboy

Who cares? It still changes nothing.