Some people are newer to the site and haven’t seen all the “same old arguments.”

@Marcie1974 I do understand that, but not when it’s being posted by a level 8!

I hear you. I started to make a comment, the usual that I've given time and time again. Then I saw the level 8. Nah.

@TristanNuvo I agree with both of you, that is why it is important to make the post. The position that atheist are closed minded in the community is short sighted.

"But, but, but ... I can feel His presence!". (Sorry, but I simply could not resist taking that old warhorse out its stable again. )

As wise as you appear

“...although I class myself as an Atheist, I am agnostic as well” A few insist on the same. As I’ve lived it, Atheists do not believe in gods.

Agnostics claim not to know... No difference?

Some appear willing to spin off into another universe ..attempting to describe how their concept of this or that makes it all possible. Just give me the facts, either they add up to a god, or not. Both don’t work ~

It's a bit more nuanced, IMO.

Agnosticism is the blank slate of insufficient evidence, while atheism is the neutral state we all were born with. But to lack a belief is not the same as believing a negative. It simply means the case has not been made to prove the existence of a deity. In a criminal case, the defendant is either guilty or not guilty, but never found innocent. To the atheist, God is found 'not guilty' of existing.

This lack of belief does not mean a closed mind on the subject; as @DavidLaDeau posts, his mind (as is mine) remain open to new evidence. Should compelling new evidence be found, the case of God's existence can be retried.

"atheism is the neutral state we all were born with. " It seems like you are trying to say children do not believe in higher powers . . . I'll not buy into that. I am not saying children believe in any man-made gods that they are taught about, I am only saying that children are very likely to believe in some forms of higher power . . . before they even acquire language, they see adults behaving in ways that clearly demonstrate higher power, and for a child to dismiss that is a very unlikely case. It is much more likely that children believe in higher powers, simply because they empirically experience it. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the reasons why many people become religious is because they subconsciously want to perpetuate their dependency upon some higher power, doing otherwise takes them out of the comfort zone they lived so long in as they were growing up . . . .

@p-nullifidian "insuficient evidence" ?. Could you quote some of the evidence then

@p-nullifidian It really isn't "a bit more nuanced," but I'll bite.

1. If anything, babies are born with no beliefs (Agnosticism), not an opinion one way or the other.
2. A lack of belief is not the same thing as believing the negative. In any case, atheist DO believe the negative. That's the point. An atheist would say 100% of the time, "I believe there is no god."
   Or, I believe in godlessness." Okay? That's what an atheist IS. (Of course they also have a LACK of belief in the affirmative, that there IS a god, but that is not what defines them. You know it, I know it.
3. Agnosticism, in addition to anything else, is a lack of belief in god. Not atheism, Agnosticism. But it's also a lack of belief in the NON-existence of god.
4. the Agnostic, not the Atheist, takes seriously the lack of negative evidence disproving the existence of god. But he ALSO notes the lack of positive evidence PROVING it's existence.
5. God is found 'not guilty' of existing? True. BUT it has ALSO been found 'not guilty' of NOT existing. Clearly there is no evidence, period.
6. Atheists cannot define 'god.' Since 'god' presently is an ABSTRACT CONCEPT rather than a concrete reality, there are no sightings, recordings, transcripts, or any other physical trace. Therefore, 'god' can only be defined as a non-physical SPIRIT, or something else entirely, about which we have no information. The onus is on the Atheist, not the Agnostic, to PROVE some other definition is not only desirable, but NECESSARY.
   Therefore, the Agnostic need not prove anything. That's the point. Unlike the Theist, the other party in this dispute, the agnostic may remain silent. He has nothing to prove. So he withdraws with a shrug and lets the two antagonists, natural enemies, have at it.

@Archeus_Lore I must, with regret, demure that young children believe in a 'higher power.' because that's not what he said in the first place. He said children are 'born atheists,' which is ludicrous, since they have no concept of 'god' in which to believe or disbelieve.
It's equally obvious babies are born agnostic. They'd have no opinion on it whatsoever.

“no evidence upon which to base a belief”? Agnostics are waiting for ‘evidence upon which to base a belief?’ Or, in need of evidence to disprove a negative..? Maybe I shouldn’t have just laughed … it reads as most are struggling

But to refine your simplicity, make that ‘no god or gods’ for we atheists. And while you’re at it, I suggest adding perhaps ‘a father,’ ‘a son,’ and a ‘holy ghost’ for the fantasy fans ...assuming the Greeks and their shitload of the same are long gone..

@Storm1752 Well said Storm!

@Moravian The ‘evidence’ offered by theists comes in the form of philosophical arguments, of which there are dozens, but include the cosmological (and its associated derivatives), ontological and the argument from design, to name three. An entertaining overview of the arguments, including a number of tongue-in-cheek examples, may be found in Rebecca Newberger Goldstein’s book, 36 Arguments for the Existence of God—A Work of Fiction.

Each of the arguments could occupy many pages of text, but Goldtein's distillation of the cosmological argument, one of William Lane Craig's favorites, is as follows:

1. Everything that exists must have a cause.
2. The universe must have a cause (from 1).
3. Nothing can be the cause of itself.
4. The universe cannot be the cause of itself (from 3).
5. Something outside the universe must have caused the universe (from 2 & 4).
6. God is the only thing that is outside of the universe.
7. God caused the universe (from 5 & 6).
8. God exists.

I have read and re-read each of the arguments, from their ancient originators to their contemporary apologists, and have found them unconvincing, or lacking sufficient evidence. Some may object that philosophical arguments shouldn’t even be counted as evidence, but since empirical evidence is in short supply to either prove or disprove the existence of a deity, this is about all we have.

@Moravian, @WilliamFleming Agreed, very well said. I find myself in 'violent' agreement.

@p-nullifidian Thanks for that but of course there is no evidence of any gods.
All I can see is that many people who post here have been indoctrinated by Christian theology and although most say that they have left it all behind it doesn't appear so.
I have never heard of William Lne Craig but I think I would ask him if his god, the creater of the universe, is outside the universe how can this god affect anything inside the universe ?. Or is he/she/it like Schrodingers cat and can be in two places at once.

@p-nullifidian Yes it would seem 'logical' the universe was 'caused;' in other words, there was a time it didn't exist, and then it did.
But it is actually harder to imagine NOTHING EXISTING, and then it coming into being somehow, than it is to imagine it ALWAYS existing.
Indeed, the Big Bang has again been challenged by something called the Big Bounce, which postulates just that: the universe, all matter and energy in existence, has always existed and undergoes cyclic contractions and expansions, rather than appearing out of nowhere.
I ask you, which is harder to envision?
The Hindu and Buddhist religions, far older than the Abrahamic ones, describe such a cyclic process.
Our much younger ones see something (a great deal of something!) out of nothing.
Since it is common knowledge energy (and it's other state, mass)CANNOT BE CREATED OR DESTROYED, it'd seem to me physical laws favor an eternal, forever cycling state of being.
This would of course contradict the biblical claim, which is PERHAPS why physicists and their predecessors, for at least for the past 2000 years or so, favored arguments such as the one you enumerated. After all, if "everything has a cause," including the physical world itself, then who else but a god or gods could do the job?
Matter and energy are constantly in flux, so it's not surprising if people thought a substance, or beam of light, was 'created' out of seemingly nothing, so was 'caused,' so had a 'beginning' so must have had a 'creator.' But we know now it's an illusion.
This is apparently another instance our religion/culture/ societal values and perceptions have yet to keep up (or catch up) with new discoveries and information.

@Storm1752 Yes! What if the universe 'breathes?' Your ideas resonate and remind me of something I once read by Robert Green Ingersoll, the "Great Agnostic," and brilliant orator of the 19th century.

"Every cause must produce an effect, because until it does produce an effect, it is not a cause. Every effect must in its turn become a cause. Therefore, in the nature of things, there cannot be a last cause, for the reason that a so-called last cause would necessarily produce an effect, and that effect must of necessity become a cause. The converse of these propositions must be true. Every effect must have had a cause, and every cause must have been an effect. Therefore, there could have been no first cause. A first cause is just as impossible as a last effect. Beyond the universe there is nothing, and within the universe the supernatural does not and cannot exist."
—The Gods, 1872

@p-nullifidian Fantastic quote. Exactly.
Not sure about the last sentence; I'll have to think about it. Maybe what we think of as supernatural is natural but with as-of-yet not understood mechanisms.
More later. Going to work.

Nailed it again, William.

There is no beyond.

Substitute ‘reason’ with ‘proof’ and your reasoning will fall apart.. ...in fact.. how bout one iota of proof? Right, none, leaving only a “deep awareness, awe and reverence” of a ‘god’ you’re not willing to support.. Fence-sitting, plain & simple.

How many lifetimes of pretending ‘they may have a point’ ...before standing up to say, no, they don’t..? Tolerating the devious diction's of make-believe religions do not set you apart from the same.. it leaves you an enabler.

Perhaps you’re struggling, as most agnostics appear to be, but spinning your wheels attempting to discredit one having the courage to make a stand still gets you nowhere ~

@jdubose, @Varn Read some physics.

@WilliamFleming I have a degree in physics. I thought I was agreeing with what you said. What do you mean "read some physics"?

@jdubose Sorry. Maybe I read you the wrong way when you said there is no beyond. In the sense of the supernatural there is no beyond, but in my opinion our everyday sense world is just symbolic and imaginary. There is an ultimate reality beyond our personal realities.

Science tries to probe that ultimate reality, and is able to create mathematical models that help understand to a limited and superficial degree. IMO the foundations of ultimate reality are a profound and inexplicable mystery, out of reach.

But basically I agree. Everything is natural, and potentially could be understood if we weren’t limited. I greatly admire people who are able to get their degrees in physics.

Agnostics, unlike atheists, are free to speculate about the subject.
They neither believe nor disbelieve; their voices are unfettered.
Atheists have backed themselves into an undefendable absolutist corner. Since there is DEFINITELY no god, any 'extra-normal' phenomenon must be fake, regardless of information to the contrary.
No, this information does not constitute
conclusive proof, but it does suggest something well short of atheistic certainty.

@Storm1752 I can only cite my own experience, and a few authors, in disagreeing with the premise that lacking a belief of any kind in a deity backs me into a corner of absolutist thinking. I remain open to new evidence, which would pass scientific rigor, in substantiating a supreme being.

@TheMiddleWay I have yet to meet a non-believer who would, as you've described it, consider a non-commital stance to equate to acceptance, but if I did, I would not agree with him/her.

@TheMiddleWay Seems ironic when people who espouse free thinking and an open minded attitude take on their own 'doctrinal' thinking. I hope I never become that sure of myself.

@Storm1752 I am an agnostic atheist, I can not rule out what I can not know such as an undetectable god. That being said an undetectable god does not do god stuff and thus is not a god. I am an atheist. I can not prove that which does not exist, does not exist so I am agnostic about those things. I can not say I "know" there is no god. However due to the lack of evidence I am 100% certain there is no god. I have activly tried all my life to prove myself wrong. I am open to evidence and will change my mind with that evidence. This could not be a more open position to have. Not backed into a corner and not closed minded.

Why not? I do not like being accused of opinions that I do not have. I get that enough from apologist.

@DavidLaDeau We seem to have this, or similar, discussion about once a week.

‘Do you really want to go there?”....again! It’s quite farcical!!

Very well put!

@SeaGreenEyez I see no implied question mark. Can you explain further?

I think being a vegetarian meat eater is a bit like being a married bachelor--there's no overlap in that Venn diagram. The term agnostic was of course coined by Huxley (Darwin's Bulldog) in the 1860's, and was meant to describe a way of reasoning, as opposed to a belief. Also, I have met agnostic Christians ... folks who do not believe in Christ's divinity, but accept the majority of his teachings.

Thats just because no one has told you about the magical unicorn that lives in my butt. BELIEVE DAMMIT!

Sounds kind of like agnosticism to me. I really don't know why people are so judgmental. Let's let you be you and me be me. Otherwise, we're just as bad as some (most) religions that try to force their religion upon others.

@15Zelda I'm quite certain that there is no proof of a god as of yet, so I am not hedging my bets or wussing out the way that agnostics often do. I don't mind when atheists are annoyed with religious types pedaling their crazy and hate filled dogma but it does irk me when agnostics get upset about because they are so wishy washy on the whole issue. Oh I don't know, I'm not really sure, maybe I will make up my mind about the god issue some day but probably not today and likely never, UGH! You give the religitards a free pass to take an inch and they will take a mile, in fact if you are an American then you are already going down that road towards a theocracy.
If you don't stand for something then you will fall for anything, as the C&W song goes. Being agnostic often amounts to being an enabler.

"I find Agnostics to be fence sitters" this is an old chestnut to put people off being agnostics.
First every scientist can be regarded as an agnostic because why would you say you know something before you set out to prove it - you would be wasting your time. Every Baby is an agnostic before its brain develops fully and the Brain is not completely developed until about age 24 . I admit a baby may know something about their mum even in the womb. Most of the world's Humans are agnostic about most things and are happy to hang on to that. IMO The word Atheist will gradually disappear.

Most importantly atheist and agnostic are NOT mutually exclusive. You can be both at once.Saying" I'm Atheist only says ONE thing about you". You know what that is. Being called an agnostic says a great deal more . It signals that you are prepared to search out an answer which is the default human position from built in curiosity. It helps you move towards Science IF you want to. IMO science is how we are going to defeat religion i.e complete the job that it most famously already started.

@Mcflewster So if I understand correctly it is your opinion that atheist are close minded because they have not been given evidence for god and agnostics are the same they just do it better? I am trying to understand the difference here.

I laugh every time I see your pick! Just put one little white patch on your collar and the shirt makes you look like a priest!

@DavidLaDeau No I do not think that Atheists are close minded. They have got partly away from religion by declaring an important decision. But that word does annoy religionists because they are not yet prepared to be skeptical . I would be happy for atheists to show their willingness to progress further. Calling yourself an agnostic would indicate that you are prpared to think further and discuss it with religionists in the hope of partially converting them. A difficult task I know but if we do not try we will never get off the starting line where Atheists are standing

@Mcflewster I very clearly identify as an agnostic atheist. I simply state that while i aknowledge that I can not know what I can not know, I am certian with what I do know, that there is no god.

@Mcflewster Sometimes those old chestnuts are still around after all these years because they are the truth. I am well versed in the scientific method but why muddy the waters with agnostic when you are just an atheist who is willing to be proven wrong, with evidence that can be verified and reproduced?

@DavidLaDeau Yes I had just gone for a ride on my Ebike in the snow, that's a black thermal liner, hope it doesn't make me look all pedo like a priest. lol

@Surfpirate No you actually look like a nice aproachable fellow!

@DavidLaDeau Whew thanks, I used to be a boy scout leader so being compared to a priest as well would be two strikes against me and 3 strikes and you are out. lol Seriously though, there are some dodgy characters in the Scouting Movement, I ran one of them off when he was far to friendly with one of my scouts. One thing I am not is wishy washy, probably why I identify as an Atheist and not an Agnostic.

@DavidLaDeau It is not clear David who you are accusing of being a priest. Who ever it is, I surmise that would apply to any picture of a face. To prove my case I picked , rather than lampoon your photo a face that could be your twin from the UK. Honestly does he look like a priest? . Well although he does frequently put on the collar he is most often seen like the top photo . That is because he travels the world to present the BBC the program "Around the world in 80 religions. Try watching his series.
You are edging me towards submitting my life story for the group on this site and I hope that there you see that I am a devout agnostic humanist with professional interest in atheists.

@Mcflewster I was in no way accusing anyone of being a priest. The comment as stated was"I laugh everytime I see your pic! Just put one white patch on your collar and the SHIRT makes you LOOK like a priest."

I would like to hear your story. Mine is slowly being documented on my YouTube channel. What do you mean by professional interest in atheist?

It was surfpirate that I made the joke to.

@DavidLaDeau I certainly didn't take offense, I thought it was hilarious, never looked at my pic that way before. I guess that's why I am happier than some people who dwell on such things from a negative point of view. lol

@Mcflewster You don't have a collar in your profile pic, where exactly would a white patch be placed to make you look like a priest?

@Surfpirate You shouldnt have asked. I will show you how I wear it. This is a parody from my youtube channel.

@DavidLaDeau I mean by professional that I am an ex-science teacher trying to interest everyone in more science. I even think that I can persuade atheists (without force) to label as agnostics ( that is inherant in science and make 'atheist' [the word] fade away. What chance?
The use of dog collars was a very clever and very visual symbol that cost nothing. They only had to put their tie space at the back of their neck. Did I pick the right lookalike ?

@Surfpirate More clergy are putting them in the bin over in UK . Have you heard of "Sea of Faith"
an organisation that helps preists who have lost their faith.

@Mcflewster Not Sea of Faith only The Clergy Project.

@DavidLaDeau Same thing in different countries. Sea of Faith started, in the UK ,by Don Cupitt

Their battle call is "open your mind" which means believe whatever I say or you are closed minded.

"human knowledge is limited to experience"
-This I agree with 100%

@Fletch I'm not sure if I agree with this as I think it excludes creativity which might be defined as an intuitive leap beyond experience.

Human knowledge cannot be limited to experience. If it were to be so our scientific knowledge would never have gotten past the 19th century. The bulk of the physics of the 20th century defied experience and built on almost all abstract math. Even before that complex numbers were discovered without anyone ever experiencing them.

Ultimate cause as god ? That's Deism. Agnostics are true scientists. Evidence or it's not real. What you believe doesn't matter.

Unfortinately dictionaries can be wrong. "A person that holds that the existance of the ultimate cause, as god" is the definition of a theist. Agnostics tend to question if god does exist and/or what is that god? Of course there are many more meanings of agnostic as discussed in the post.

The ‘top one’ - clean & simple ~

I am both. One is knowledge, while one is belief. As long as we have to separate the two we will need two terms.

Wow. Really reaching out...that's BIG of you.
And I see atheists as misguided Agnostics with a 'god complex.'
Maybe we can meet for lunch.
Talk it over...

Okay time to jump into the gambit!

Agnostics tend to question if there is a god.
Atheist and theist have come to a conclusion.

@jdubose, @Storm1752, @DavidLaDeau Tell yourselves whatever you need ..in order to heal, develop, or advance.. Just don’t tell an Atheist what he thinks ~

Dont need or care about points. It is the Points being discussed that are my concern. This is a great website as there are many "agnostics" here that are simply on the fence and trying to work things out in their minds. I do aknowledge that there are indeed many agnostics that have given it much thought time and considerstion and do hold to the agnostic position. I am not one of either anymore. I was agnostic only for a brief period of time until I could no longer justify that position. With more information about a "real" god I could definately become a believer.

@Varn What are you talking about? Do you just tag everyone in a thread?

@jdubose You’ve ‘tagged me,’ Dude

@Varn Who is telling you what to think? Dismissive much?
"@jdubose, @Storm1752, @DavidLaDeau Tell yourselves whatever you need ..in order to heal, develop, or advance.. Just don’t tell an Atheist what he thinks ~

@jdubose You’re “both” … so I guess you’d know it all

@OldMetalHead I too am an atheist with respect to those old mythological figures. No need to make a big issue out of it unless someone is badgering you about it. For myself, I just give that stuff a sideways glance and move on.

I hope I did not come off as bellowing at the other camp. To me there is no two camps between atheist and agnostics, only misunderstanding. It appears that there are many of us that are indeed closed minded about their opinions of others. I do not like being accused of being closed minded for not adopting others misunderstandings of my position.

@DavidLaDeau Not at all. I was describing militant church types vs militant atheists as I see them.

And you agree your mind may well--even probably--remain undecided, save fresh evidence?
Thank you.
No further questions.

Your words and thoughts not mine.

You have no evidence either way.
I don't 'believe in' a father, son, and holy ghost, either. I'm not an idiot. But I can't PROVE they don't exist, except no 'good god" would create a hell, which is what they themselves say about their god. So it's a self-contradictory statement.
BUT that's only one possible definition of 'god,' the one. Hey, I'm an atheist too, when it comes to that.
But just as you are not qualified nor allowed to define which gods are on the 'do not believe' list, you can't tell me I MUST narrow my perspective to that one particular definition. I don't and won't.
I might be a Neo-Deist one day, a Pantheist the next, Ignostic the next; depends maybe what I've read lately, or how I fell out of bed, or what the weather's like. It's none of your beeswax.
Just don't make any bogus claims, like you have a 'lack of belief,' but that doesn't mean you don't have a negative belief. That's nonsense.
You're an Atheist. Own it. Be proud of the fact. You don't believe in God. Repeat after me:
"I don't believe in God, any god."
See? That wasn't so hard.
Me? "I don't know if Zeus exists, but at least he and his definition was consistent."
"I don't believe in the Jesus Christ who (if he does) sends people to hell. In him I'm a non-believer."
In a 'collective consciousness' I'm agnostic. Lots of interesting speculation in that field. Still looking into it.
I could go on but I'm getting bored.
Have a nice day.
"

@Storm1752 you bore yourself in a ridiculously long and winded reply to a 1 word comment.

The argument that if ypu don't know everything, you can't know anything is often used by apologist. Then they claim to know it all "god". Then that is where they leave the argument.

@DavidLaDeau If someone said that to me then I would simply concede. OK, I don’t know anything then. Does that mean that person wins the argument? Whatever. If that makes them feel better. Am I now not agnostic? Wouldn’t I be more of an agnostic now?

@indirect76 The argument then gooes well god knows everything and if you don't know everything there is to know you can not say there is not a god.

@DavidLaDeau That’s great because I never claimed there is no god.

The word agnostic has come into more common use of late. At work, for example, I have heard colleagues say that when it comes to a choice to be made, such as the colors used in a presentation, whether or not to use contractions in writing or where we should go for lunch, they are 'agnostic' on the idea. Personally, I am not agnostic to the Oxford English Dictionary's following definition:

"In extended use: a person who is not persuaded by or committed to a particular point of view; a sceptic. Also: person of indeterminate ideology or conviction; an equivocator."

I disagree completely with the OED!

I prefer the definition of the person who coined the term.

@Archeus_Lore
Very nice, but logically equivalent. Thank you for the reference, none the less. Knowledge is always welcome.