In my view, those who insist that they KNOW something are not much different than the christians who insist they know something.

@Archeus_Lore I am happy to state that I know the God of the Bible cannot exist. The same goes for the God of the Torah. I regard all othder gods as fictional.

@t1nick .Hogwash

@Archeus_Lore
Archeus that pic is getting old.

Good, I am glad to hear it has had an impact. I will post it some more.

@Omnedon

It's still Pascal's wager. People tend to hate absolutes.

@Omnedon

Yes I mean agnosticism. Its true that nobody has incontrovertible evidence that absolutely no God exists. But better explanations abound for both existence and how the Umiverse operates. I am, without any doubt in my mind that no God figure exists now or ever did.

One of the shortcomings I see in many, not all, but many people is their unwillingness to commit to anything. People in general hate being held accountable. It means a risk that they are unwilling to take. What if they are wrong? That is the impression I get with many Agnostics on this site. So they play Pascal's wager. I'll just say perhaps, just in case I'm wrong.

I have no monopoly on knowledge, insight, or understanding regarding the inner workings of the Universe. But I have read, studied, discussed, and contemplated sufficiently to say what the evidence says to me.

I am certainly NOT playing Pascal's wager, I have nothing to fear, and, if you look at SCIENCE, you will find that any question that involves many different variables is never considered to ever be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. Part of the problem is that Atheists get the notion in their head that when an Agnostic refused to be identified as an Atheist, that the Agnostic has some god akin to the bullshit god of the bible, which is usually very far from the truth. Even Einstein and Hawking both left the door open for possibilites . . . . . the universe is make up of the very same thing that people's brains are made up of . . . . energy. E = mc^2 . . . . . and just the fact that no one can prove one way or the other places the Atheists in the very same camp as the christians. That does not mean I do not debate the christians about the existence of god, I do, because their idea of god is completely absurd.

@Archeus_Lore

Not only have I looked at Science, I've been a scientist and a science instructor for over 40 years. People can be, and are influenced by their culture. It is hard to go against a culture that is pervasive and ever present in all aspects of the world around oneself.

Darwin could not divorce himself from the Church of England and the God paradigm. Even though in his writings there is ample proof of his skepticism. The age that Einstein lived and worked, the yolk of Christianity was pervasive enough to give pause to anyone who was skeptical or wavering. It was not a safe environment to proclaim atheism.

Its possible he did beleive in that potential for a bigger explanation, or it could be he just wasnt comfortable in declaring at a time when the world he lived in was not amenable to such a declaration. I cannot read their minds.

I do know what the evidence says to me. I have no reservations in not believing. I get tired of the same old arguments on here related to Christianity and Islam. I've studied multiple religions on my own and am aware of premises of most of the major religions. I also understand a persons need to find reinforcement when divorcing themselves from one paradigm and adjusting to a new paradigm.

I just have trouble with the dithering of many of the Agnostics. But that's my problem in the long run. I try not to enter into religious discussions on this sight as I find them tedious and generally superfluous. Unfortunately, many of the people I interact with engage, and then the discussion gets sent my way as a result of that connection. I generally do not respond, but occasionally get caught up.

Dithering is being indecisive. I would not call it being indecisive, I would call it being willing to accept any new evidence were it to come along . . . . that is a progressive view, as opposed to a static view. The poor example that christians set, is mirrored by the poor example set by those who insist on claiming something they cannot prove.

@Archeus_Lore

You may not dither, but you are not the sole representative. I'm not being dogmatic as I am not claiming anything specific beyond my total disbelief. Accept, don't accept, that's on you. I know where I stand and why.

I may not represent every Agnostic, but your representation of Agnostics is certainly no representation of the vast majority of Agnostics.

I believe that ET's would have to exist somewhere. It's just that I do not feel we have sufficient evidence. Many try to delude and swindle in order to get you to believe. Hey, that sounds almost like religion.

@maturin1919 A couple of days ago I submitted an essay about the nones in this country. I don't have access on my laptop but can try to remember later. The author made a compelling argument in the issue being polarized into theist and nontheist (atheist). The degree of disbelief comes under the atheist heading.

lol that dude has suffered enough already . he has all the blame .

But there are plenty of female gods, one of my favourites are Artemis/ Diana and of course there’s the many faceted Kali

@girlwithsmiles but it appears they have been pushed aside out of the linelight

@DavidRooney perhaps it depends who your friends are, some of mine refer to women as goddesses and have books about them. I brought my god daughter a book of positive female protagonist, ‘fairy stories’, because since the Grimms there’s been an onus on the men being rescuers. The female centric and respectful stuff is out there; you just have to look past the norm.

@girlwithsmiles i have been saved from sure doom by a pr3sent girl.. we were unaware of our predicament...and it only came clear to me much later....i doubt she made the connection.

@DavidRooney good stuff

Not quite sure what you are saying but if you are having a dig at "atheists" I think you are a bit of the mark

@Moravian I am talking about believing, in any form it may presents.
I don't believe in any god or supernatural, but i don't define me by what I believe. but by what I know. That is why I am agnostic.
Not because the god of the culture I was born is immoral, not because church does bad things, not fecause fanatics are ridiculous and dangerous. Or because having no god makes me superior.
I am agnostic simply because 1) there is no evidence of supernatural and it is impossible to discard a non falsifiable hypothesis (thus this hypothesis is useless).
For me the word agnostic is a critic to teism, because it does not say what I believe, it says that claiming to know is impossible.

@Pedrohbds So are also agnostic re Bertrand Russel's teapot circling the earth ?. I am a total non believer in any supernatural forces or entities and believe the science can explain evefrything although we have much to discover yet and the human mind is still a mystery. If believers want to label me as an atjheist so be it .

@Moravian Yep, for short term I say I am an atheist, because for all practical purposes I am.
Agnostic is just to be very precise and specific.
The tea Pot argument is valid, and the point is. What is the point of debating, investigating or take a stank in something that is not possible to prove or disprove? For all practical purposes, something that can't be demonstrated to exist or work is indistinguishable of a not existent/not working thing. So saying that "i can't know about it" says more than "I don't believe" or "I believe it don't exist".

Agnostic is not "i don't know" or "I can't decide". it is "IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO KNOW". And it is a stronger argument because for the real world and day to day life it does not matter if there is no god or if gods hides itself perfectly, on both cases scenarios the result is the same, you deal with the reality you can know about.