If you don't know something then one could say that you are 100% ignorant. However, having no knowledge of something is still knowledge, ie the knowledge that you do not know. So, calculate the probability of your ignorance being valid. I know that I know not until I know better.

@Atheist3 I don’t go around saying that I am an agnostic or an atheist or anything else except a person who is in awe and has deep reverence for nature and who has absolutely no understanding of what’s behind reality in an ultimate sense.

A statement of agnosticism, atheism or theism is nothing but a personal opinion—a value judgment or emotion—a statement about oneself.There are no proofs and none are possible or meaningful.

There is no burden of proof on a person making an affirmative statement. There is no burden of proof, period, but any assertion can be couched in either positive or negative terms.

I do not like to use the word “God” because it is likely to be misunderstood, however there are god concepts that are meaningful. To speak of belief or disbelief about the nature of ultimate reality is utterly stupid. Why argue over something when you haven’t the slightest idea of what you’re talking about? Whatever you said about it would be meaningless.

@WilliamFleming To the contrary, evidence is everything. An opinion without evidence is faith. You have to do better than that!

@Atheist3 My sense of wonder and awe in the face of the staggering implications of the mystery of existence is indeed based on “evidence”. The evidence is that I am in touch with my personal feelings, thoughts and experiences. That is the only evidence needed by anyone in regard to their opinions.

There is no burden of proof for a person’s personal opinions. We are perfectly free to express our opinions or to keep them private if we want to. It’s really no one else’s business.

If anyone demands evidence for your disbelief in God, all you have to say is that you know yourself and that your opinion comes from inner thoughts and feelings.

If you were actually on an open-minded quest for truth it would be different. You’d be eagerly probing all avenues, all perspectives. You’d be analyzing, discussing, reading.

That’s not the situation is it?

@WilliamFleming I felt it so it must be true?

@Atheist3 You seem to be having trouble with a very basic fact. There is no absolute universal cosmic truth. Assertion, proof, evidence—these are human mind things of no significance from a cosmic perspective. Those things might help us in our mental cogitation in the way that taking a laxative might help with our elimination, but that is nothing of much significance viewed from an overall perspective.

Suppose I say that I like chocolate cake. Are you going to jump in and demand proof? It was a statement about myself, and yes, because I felt it, my assertion has to be true to me, though unprovable to anyone else.

People who go around saying that there is NO evidence for this or that, and who are constantly demanding proof are not in touch with reality, but are living in a bubble of self-delusion.

If it is as you say that I must present a formal proof with evidence for my lack of atheism, then let’s see you make me. Go ahead—see if you can.

Yes, the simplest answer to the question with the least assumption is the better. Wise is the person whose knowledge is based on the evidence.

Great perspective. But I will give other opinions consideration.

Oh please! However you want to define the supernatural, you still don't have any concrete, credible evidence for your fantasy.

@Atheist3 I said I was AGNOSTIC, not a believer, BECAUSE I have no "concrete, credible evidence." I DO have circumstantial evidence for some things, such as reincarnation, or psychism. But that's not good enough
Don't you see the difference?
I DO have "concrete, credible evidence" there is no such thing as a "divine entity," however.
A "god" would answer prayer, for instance. The facts show prayer is statistically ineffectual.
A "god" would prevent suffering...or not create it in the first place.
A "god" would create independent entities with TRUE free will, such as himself. It does not; it FORCES them to act a certain way.
On and on. There is no end to the contradictions. This is, for me, evidence.
It may not be, for some people.
That's fine. They can make up their own minds.
But I'm talking about ME, not them.

An honest person is hard to find!

Not a statistic but a definition. Agnostic - no knowledge whether a god does or doesn't exist. Why should that be the logical, most probable conclusion?

@Atheist3 Any probability relies on an underlying statistic, hence my question. Unless, and until, you state which statistic you are using I will be unable to answer your question.

Do you ever?

@Atheist3 Do I ever what?

@PondartIncbendog Lol - Think while yer sitting down facing forward.

You cared enough to respond!

@Atheist3 That’s true. Only polite to do so

@Geoffrey51 apatheism is a perfectly reasonable alternative to agnosticism, anti-theism or atheism and will probably one day become the norm as religion becomes less and less relevant to everyday life as apathy seems to be the prevailing doctrine for most millenials on all other subjects too.

@LenHazell53 I’m sure it is Len, but does it matter what you call or don’t call yourself.

It’s only for the benefit of others so they know how to categorise you.

@Geoffrey51 true

@Geoffrey51 I liked to be called a 'humanist'.

Yippee hiyo ki ay!

A puzzling answer. Believing is a statement of faith whereas knowing is a statement of fact. If there is no evidence for god then absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Ergo, the logical position is that 'there is no god' until evidence is presented to the contrary.

@Atheist3 I disagree. If no evidence has been found, it doesn't mean that there isn't evidence that has not yet been discovered, so my position is that I can not know.

The fact that I don't know is 100% correct. That is my position.

I also believe that no one can know whether there is or isn't a god. That is my belief. A belief can not be proven, otherwise it would be a fact.

I am living my life under the assumption that there is no god, since I haven't seen evidence of any.

Those who believe there is a god are correct too, because their belief is real. God/s are only real in the imagination of the believer. That to me is the essence of a god.

@Julie808 Sure, & I will consider a belief in leprechauns, or unicorns or god to be a logical argument. I don't deny the fact that a person can be delusional in one's belief, ie I felt it, so it's true, however that is subjective.
They're are those who believe that the earth is flat. Are they correct too? Well, if you want to think that b/c they believe it then science has no credibility.

You, personally. I don't know. But maybe you could enlighten me?

I don't know why I responded tha way? Perhaps I was tired or distracted. If we go by Occums razor that being the most simple solution tends to be correct, It would seem to be most probable that there is not Gods at all. This is simply due to the fact that there has been no evidence presented for such a notion in all of human histroy that we know of.