Men, Women And Their Beliefs

[♦ ficino ♦]

Hi, Asimov, doesn't "agnostic" just mean someone who maintains that God is unknown in some respect: that s/he doesn't know whether there is a God, or that s/he cannot know this, or that no one can know whether there is a God? I don't think the word is used to refer to someone who in fact does not know whether there is a god, but rather, to someone who takes a position that he/she doesn't know. Not everyone in the world is agnostic except on an unusual, perhaps even trivializing definition of that term. I can't accept that "agnostic" retains its standard meaning when you apply it to all humans. I can accept "no human knows that God exists," but that's not the same as "there is no human who does not assert that God's existence cannot be/is not known."

[Clergicide]

Amethyst has it right though.

 

In what aspect of her point? That I should stop bitching about agnosticism? Hehe...

 

That, and the other bits. I thought she defined it quite well.

 

But to answer your claims, agnostic is considered position. It's not a default. Just like no one is by default member of a political party if they don't have views...well we could joke and say that's potential for Democrat leadership...but it doesn't make them anything, by default they are unaffiliated. And in the US where 70-80% 'believe' in some form of god, I would daresay the default is 'belief'.

 

You say that because no knows if there is a god, everyone is agnostic ::sigh:: only as an objective observation is your premise arguably true, but that conclusion is wonky no matter how you slice it.

 

Look, theists 'believe' there is, and atheists 'believe' there isn't, and they both hold these things true without the benefit of evidence or proof to support them. You're correct, neither 'knows', but they both 'believe'. Agnostics opt not to believe in either direction, it's a conscious decision, and is markedly different from atheism in one important respect...no belief.

 

Anyone that simply 'doesn't know' because they've never really thought about it...are ignorant on the issue by definition, and that's the only label that fits, because they aren't anything else.

 

I discuss all this in greater detail:

 

Here

[Asimov]

Amethyst has it right though.

 

In what aspect of her point? That I should stop bitching about agnosticism? Hehe...

 

That, and the other bits. I thought she defined it quite well.

 

But to answer your claims, agnostic is considered position. It's not a default. Just like no one is by default member of a political party if they don't have views...well we could joke and say that's potential for Democrat leadership...but it doesn't make them anything, by default they are unaffiliated. And in the US where 70-80% 'believe' in some form of god, I would daresay the default is 'belief'.

 

You say that because no knows if there is a god, everyone is agnostic ::sigh:: only as an objective observation is your premise arguably true, but that conclusion is wonky no matter how you slice it.

 

Look, theists 'believe' there is, and atheists 'believe' there isn't, and they both hold these things true without the benefit of evidence or proof to support them. You're correct, neither 'knows', but they both 'believe'. Agnostics opt not to believe in either direction, it's a conscious decision, and is markedly different from atheism in one important respect...no belief.

 

Anyone that simply 'doesn't know' because they've never really thought about it...are ignorant on the issue by definition, and that's the only label that fits, because they aren't anything else.

 

I discuss all this in greater detail:

 

Here

 

At religioustolerance.org, they go over agnosticism and they break it down into a few overlapping sections:

 

* I don't personally know.

* I don't know but will lead my life in the assumption that no God exists.

* I don't know but will lead my life assuming that God does exist.

* I cannot give an opinion because there is no way that we can prove the existence or non-existence of God given currently available knowledge.

* I cannot give an opinion because there is no way to know, with certainty, anything about God, now and in the future.

* Yes, God exists. But we do not know anything about God at this time.

* Yes, God exists. But we have no possibility of knowing anything about God, now or in the future.

 

Would you agree with these?

[Clergicide]

At religioustolerance.org, they go over agnosticism and they break it down into a few overlapping sections:

 

* I don't personally know.

* I don't know but will lead my life in the assumption that no God exists.

* I don't know but will lead my life assuming that God does exist.

* I cannot give an opinion because there is no way that we can prove the existence or non-existence of God given currently available knowledge.

* I cannot give an opinion because there is no way to know, with certainty, anything about God, now and in the future.

* Yes, God exists. But we do not know anything about God at this time.

* Yes, God exists. But we have no possibility of knowing anything about God, now or in the future.

 

Would you agree with these?

 

I don't personally know.

I concur.

 

I don't know but will lead my life in the assumption that no God exists.

 

No, I lead my life knowing that the existance of god has not been proven or demonstrated in any manner acceptable to the scientific method.

 

I don't know but will lead my life assuming that God does exist.

 

No, I lead my life allowing for the possibility of the existence of god(as an abstract). Even though I give it a probability of 0^2, I can admit I don't have total comprehension of everything in existence, and therefore have no means by which to disprove that possibility.

 

I cannot give an opinion because there is no way that we can prove the existence or non-existence of God given currently available knowledge.

 

I can opine all day long. What I can't do is make a statement of fact for those reasons.

 

I cannot give an opinion because there is no way to know, with certainty, anything about God, now and in the future

 

If I could see into the future we wouldn't be having this discussion, I'd be on an island with my lotto winnings. Claims about the nature of god, or ascribing any qualities whatsoever to the deity is impossible without first establishing the existence of said deity. Any positive claim about said deity can be dismissed using knowledge and reason, but it's complicated beyond the scope of this discussion to explain why that is so.

 

Yes, God exists. But we do not know anything about God at this time.

 

Show me quantifiable evidence as to how this existence was established. Until which only the possiblity of the existence of god, as an abstract, should be entertained, any further positive claims are again dismissable by faculties of reason.

 

Yes, God exists. But we have no possibility of knowing anything about God, now or in the future.

 

Ditto on existence, and ditto on lottery tickets.

 

 

 

Thomas Henry Huxley, who coined the term, meant by it "I neither affirm nor deny.. I see no reason for believing it, but, on the other hand, I have no means of disproving it."

 

There is no conclusive argument in either direction. Understanding that is the true position of agnosticism.

[Curtdude]

....I don't think the word is used to refer to someone who in fact does not know whether there is a god, but rather, to someone who takes a position that he/she doesn't know. ....

 

 

....agnostic is considered position. It's not a default.

 

....You say that because no knows if there is a god, everyone is agnostic ::sigh:: only as an objective observation is your premise arguably true...

 

Thank you ficino, Amethyst and Cergicide, you cleaned up my thoughts for me on this. That was my point of "I assert that I do not know."

 

Asimov, you've made me think through this position much more thouroghly. Many thanks, dude.

 

All four of you have my respect on being able to clank out the words so clearly.

 

 

.... If others wish to call themselves agnostic, I don't care either. Even theists are fine as long as they are willing to live and let live.

 

It does seem though that some theists try to put the atheists in the same camp by arguing that both positions are claims. This I reject. I don't have a valid reason for believing in a deity, therefore I don't believe in one....

 

Vigile, perhaps there is a correlation between preferring Belgian beer and these thoughts.

 

One thing we can all agree on, I hope, is that when a christian puts all non-christians in the same philosophical camp, our collective IRE gets wanked! The burden of proof is on the christian, or muslim, or whatever, to prove that the "default" position is the existence of a deity. Not on us.

 

We are holding that it is highly improbable (meaning laughable) to logically impossible for such a deity to exist.

[Asimov]

Thomas Henry Huxley, who coined the term, meant by it "I neither affirm nor deny.. I see no reason for believing it, but, on the other hand, I have no means of disproving it."

 

His position rests on a logical fallacy that we have any burden of disproving it. We don't, so his idea is invalid.

 

There is no conclusive argument in either direction. Understanding that is the true position of agnosticism.

 

Understanding that if there is no conclusive argument for a deity that we have no reason to believe. There is no "spectrum" in this regard.

[Clergicide]

Thomas Henry Huxley, who coined the term, meant by it "I neither affirm nor deny.. I see no reason for believing it, but, on the other hand, I have no means of disproving it."

 

His position rests on a logical fallacy that we have any burden of disproving it. We don't, so his idea is invalid.

 

 

No, he's pointing out that logical fallacy. It's the same fallacy that atheism, as a doctrine, makes; it is a positive claim to deny the possibility of the existence of god or gods. No one can make that claim without total comprehension of everything in existence. To do so without it requires 'belief'. That is the point he was making.

 

There is no conclusive argument in either direction. Understanding that is the true position of agnosticism.

 

Understanding that if there is no conclusive argument for a deity that we have no reason to believe. There is no "spectrum" in this regard.

 

Of course there is, to deny the possibility of the existence of god or gods is the opposite end of the spectrum. It is a claim that transcends available evidence. It's that same arrogance that people like Bertrand Russell began to recognize in the atheist movement...and apparently it hasn't changed much.

[Asimov]

No, he's pointing out that logical fallacy. It's the same fallacy that atheism, as a doctrine, makes; it is a positive claim to deny the possibility of the existence of god or gods. No one can make that claim without total comprehension of everything in existence. To do so without it requires 'belief'. That is the point he was making.

 

It isn't a positive claim to deny the existence of a god or gods, and where did I say I denied the possibility of the existence of god or gods. That is not the atheist position.

[Clergicide]

No, he's pointing out that logical fallacy. It's the same fallacy that atheism, as a doctrine, makes; it is a positive claim to deny the possibility of the existence of god or gods. No one can make that claim without total comprehension of everything in existence. To do so without it requires 'belief'. That is the point he was making.

 

It isn't a positive claim to deny the existence of a god or gods, and where did I say I denied the possibility of the existence of god or gods. That is not the atheist position.

 

You may not have.

 

a·the·ism (th-zm) Pronunciation Key

n.

 

Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

The doctrine or belief that there is no God

 

 

It may not be, but it has 'been' the atheist position in the past. And that is why we have the term agnostic.

 

To be cheeky, I'll say you're just a closet agnostic, when you're ready to admit it the door's open.

[Asimov]

You may not have.

 

a·the·ism (th-zm) Pronunciation Key

n.

 

Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

The doctrine or belief that there is no God

 

 

It may not be, but it has 'been' the atheist position in the past. And that is why we have the term agnostic.

 

To be cheeky, I'll say you're just a closet agnostic, when you're ready to admit it the door's open.

 

The denial or disbelief of the existence of God does not mean that we rule out the possibility of the existence of God.

 

Denying that AIDS can be cured does not mean that I rule out the existence of a cure.

[Clergicide]

You may not have.

 

a·the·ism (th-zm) Pronunciation Key

n.

 

Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

The doctrine or belief that there is no God

 

 

It may not be, but it has 'been' the atheist position in the past. And that is why we have the term agnostic.

 

To be cheeky, I'll say you're just a closet agnostic, when you're ready to admit it the door's open.

 

The denial or disbelief of the existence of God does not mean that we rule out the possibility of the existence of God.

 

Denying that AIDS can be cured does not mean that I rule out the existence of a cure.

 

::sigh:: and the belief or doctrine that there is no god? Are you going to tell me that holding the non-existence of god or gods true without evidence or proof to support it, isn't just that? I'm not saying you hold that position, and I'm not dismissing the entire atheist position with that usage, I'm just trying to show you that that usage exists. I know I wouldn't have to dig far to find many renouned atheists that use that definition. And I will if you wish, but it shouldn't come to that. You say agnostic is nonsensical, what I'm trying to get you to recognize is that next to that usage of atheism it isn't.

 

Let's look at it this way. Atheism to mean disbelief in god. It doesn't say much else about your position does it? Your position may be because belief is to hold something true without evidence or proof to support it, and rationally you object. You may allow for the possibility, however remote the probability, of the existence of god or gods. But the definition of atheism doesn't inherently contain these precepts. Agnosticism does.

[Asimov]

::sigh:: and the belief or doctrine that there is no god?

 

Are you going to tell me that holding the non-existence of god or gods true without evidence or proof to support it, isn't just that?

 

Yes. I would argue that a positive assertion is a statement about the nature of reality. In philosophy and the burden of proof, something isn't existent until proven otherwise.

 

Atheism is a contingent negative belief. As a direct statement against theism, it is contingent on the assertion that God exists in order to be a coherent negative belief. Because it is the antithesis to an assertion that the nature of reality is that of a God existing, it is a negative belief.

 

It is true that 'if I can't disprove it, God exists" is a logical fallacy, and it is also true that "I have not seen proof of God, therefore he doesn't exist" is a logical fallacy, however, atheism isn't an untenable position and has many arguments to combat the assertion.

 

I'm not saying you hold that position, and I'm not dismissing the entire atheist position with that usage, I'm just trying to show you that that usage exists. I know I wouldn't have to dig far to find many renouned atheists that use that definition. And I will if you wish, but it shouldn't come to that. You say agnostic is nonsensical, what I'm trying to get you to recognize is that next to that usage of atheism it isn't.

 

I know that usage exists, I disagree that it is a positive assertion. In order for it to be positive, there should be a lack of negatives. Since atheism is a negative, it can't be a positive assertion.

 

If you can show that I am wrong in this position I will certainly analyze it and think about it.

 

Let's look at it this way. Atheism to mean disbelief in god. It doesn't say much else about your position does it? Your position may be because belief is to hold something true without evidence or proof to support it, and rationally you object. You may allow for the possibility, however remote the probability, of the existence of god or gods. But the definition of atheism doesn't inherently contain these precepts. Agnosticism does.

 

It doesn't because atheism is a broad term.

 

Agnosticism may inherently contain the precepts of the possibility of God, but it doesn't include the precepts of whether or not one believes in God. Sure, we may not "know" either way, but again how does that affect belief or even the justification of a belief?

[Clergicide]

 

 

Yes. I would argue that a positive assertion is a statement about the nature of reality. In philosophy and the burden of proof, something isn't existent until proven otherwise.

 

Atheism is a contingent negative belief. As a direct statement against theism, it is contingent on the assertion that God exists in order to be a coherent negative belief. Because it is the antithesis to an assertion that the nature of reality is that of a God existing, it is a negative belief.

 

It 'can' be used as a direct statement against theism. I'm not sure I'd refer to it as a contingent negative belief, belief is a dirty word, and it's the one that's making the two of us argue in circles.

 

It is true that 'if I can't disprove it, God exists" is a logical fallacy, and it is also true that "I have not seen proof of God, therefore he doesn't exist" is a logical fallacy, however, atheism isn't an untenable position and has many arguments to combat the assertion.

 

Again, it depends on the usage. You stick the word belief in there and you can kiss the validity of your position goodbye.

 

I know that usage exists, I disagree that it is a positive assertion. In order for it to be positive, there should be a lack of negatives. Since atheism is a negative, it can't be a positive assertion.

 

If you can show that I am wrong in this position I will certainly analyze it and think about it.

 

It's more simple than you're probably thinking. To disbelieve in god is one thing, it's not accepting the idea as true. That's in line with what you were saying as an answer to theism, and it's perfectly acceptable. To 'believe' god does not exist, is another matter, it is to hold true the non-existence of god without evidence of proof to support it. The word 'believe' is what is making it a positive assertion. Phrased the second way the position 'is' untenable.

 

It doesn't because atheism is a broad term.

 

Agnosticism may inherently contain the precepts of the possibility of God, but it doesn't include the precepts of whether or not one believes in God. Sure, we may not "know" either way, but again how does that affect belief or even the justification of a belief?

 

The definition says we don't believe. If we believed in God we'd be something else. Again it's the word belief that is causing confusion. We don't 'believe' at all, in any way, shape, or form. Belief, as a basis for holding something true, is nothing more than blind faith and conviction. Our position is that to 'believe' in god, or to 'believe' god doesn't exist, are untenable positions because the foundation of both arguments is belief.

 

This is really the critical part, so I hope I've made sense of it.

[Asimov]

Belief is not blind faith and conviction. Faith is holding something as true without evidence or logical argumentation. Belief is simply accepting something as true.

 

Justified Belief is accepting something as true with evidence or logical argumentation.

 

You're taking the idea that belief has something to do with religion (which it doesn't always) and then applying it to the way that I use it.

 

If I'm going to use something like a belief without evidence or logic, then I use faith.

 

Even knowledge is known as a justified true belief...does that mean that knowledge is blind faith and conviction? No. So where does it come in that belief is blind faith? How do you justify equating the two when it clearly doesn't mean that.

[Clergicide]

Even knowledge is known as a justified true belief...does that mean that knowledge is blind faith and conviction? No. So where does it come in that belief is blind faith? How do you justify equating the two when it clearly doesn't mean that.

 

Well...I do it by using the dictionary. And belief used in reference to religious ideas... has only one meaning. None of the other meanings fit your purpose for it, either.

 

be‧lief -Dictionary.com

 

–noun 1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.

2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.

3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.

4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.

 

—Synonyms 2. assurance. Belief, certainty, conviction refer to acceptance of, or confidence in, an alleged fact or body of facts as true or right without positive knowledge or proof. Belief is such acceptance in general: belief in astrology. Certainty indicates unquestioning belief and positiveness in one's own mind that something is true: I know this for a certainty. Conviction is settled, profound, or earnest belief that something is right: a conviction that a decision is just. 4. doctrine, dogma.

 

 

believe -websters

1 a : to have a firm religious faith b : to accept as true, genuine, or real <ideals we believe in> <believes in ghosts>

 

be·lieve (b-lv) -AHD

v. be·lieved, be·liev·ing, be·lieves

 

v. intr.

To have firm faith, especially religious faith.

To have faith, confidence, or trust: I believe in your ability to solve the problem.

 

And now knowledge:

 

knowledge -websters

 

1 obsolete : COGNIZANCE

2 a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association (2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique b (1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something (2) : the range of one's information or understanding <answered to the best of my knowledge> c : the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : COGNITION d : the fact or condition of having information or of being learned <a person of unusual knowledge>

3 archaic : SEXUAL INTERCOURSE

4 a : the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by humankind

 

knowl·edge -AHD

n.

The state or fact of knowing.

Familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience or study.

The sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned.

Learning; erudition: teachers of great knowledge.

Specific information about something.

Carnal knowledge.

 

I don't see 'justified true belief' or anything akin to it there. Belief is not the word you want.

[Asimov]

Even knowledge is known as a justified true belief...does that mean that knowledge is blind faith and conviction? No. So where does it come in that belief is blind faith? How do you justify equating the two when it clearly doesn't mean that.

 

Well...I do it by using the dictionary. And belief used in reference to religious ideas... has only one meaning. None of the other meanings fit your purpose for it, either.

 

 

Ah, I see. So by playing the dictionary game, you are right. Let's look at it from a philosophical point of view (which is the type of discussion that we are having) rather than from a common usage point of view:

 

Belief:

 

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9015210/belief

http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/b2.htm#bel

 

"Affirmation of, or conviction regarding, the truth of a proposition, whether or not one is in possession of evidence adequate to justify a claim that the proposition is known with certainty."

 

 

Knowledge:

 

http://www.eequalsmcsquared.auckland.ac.nz...-and-belief.cfm

[starelda]

One female atheist here.

[Asimov]

Anyways, Clergicide. I think our differing use of definitions is a problem which causes misunderstanding.

 

Thank you very much for the discussion and I'm sorry for sidetracking the thread so much.

[Clergicide]

Even knowledge is known as a justified true belief...does that mean that knowledge is blind faith and conviction? No. So where does it come in that belief is blind faith? How do you justify equating the two when it clearly doesn't mean that.

 

Well...I do it by using the dictionary. And belief used in reference to religious ideas... has only one meaning. None of the other meanings fit your purpose for it, either.

 

 

Ah, I see. So by playing the dictionary game, you are right.

 

Yes, the dictionary..that funny book containing various combinations of phonemes and morphemes, and establishes their subsequent meaning(s)....you know, basically it's the silly notion of establishing a standard by which we can ensure that language has meaning.

 

 

Let's look at it from a philosophical point of view (which is the type of discussion that we are having) rather than from a common usage point of view:

 

The problem with the philisophical view..well the two, the first and foremost being that this is a discussion of positions relative to theism, so it's a theological discussion. Secondly, philisophically my left shoe could in actuality be my right. In the definition of belief from that philisophy site they say "I believe 2 and 3 equals five", well it's cute to reduce that to a belief, unfortunately that abandons reason and all the tools that we use to establish objective reality. So either we commit to knowledge of things like, in 'base 10' 2 and 3 equals five no matter if we're here or anywhere else in the universe, or we have to dismiss every piece of knowledge in human experience as a possible fantasy. I don't know about you, but I'm not comfortable with that approach.

 

 

This will be my last word on the subject here. I'll be happy to continue the discussion elsewhere, should feel inclined.

[Scarlett]

I am an Atheist and I am female.

[Variable]

I think that one possible reason for the greater religiosity among women is that that generally women have harder lives than men. This is true no matter what the region or religion. Women are more devote Hindu's, Buddhists, even Musims. They carry the flame of religion, instilling it in their children despite the fact that every one of these religions has some degree of mysogyny. Religion thrives during times of war and famine. It gives meaning and even encourages suffering as a means of become more spiritual. Imagine being a woman who has been beaten, raped and told she was good for nothing but producing "sons" being told about an all powerful being who fully knows and loves her anyway. I heard many stories of what "easy converts" the prostitutes in India were. The young girls who had been bought from poor villages and forced into brothels. Being raped every day. Then suddenly hearing the story of Jesus. His interactions with the woman at the well, the woman caught in adultery, eating with harlots as equals from a male missionary who was actually not trying to buy sex from them. Women in the states have hard lives too. I don't care how "advanced" anyone says this country has gotten. Lyrics about beating up "bitches" and raping "hoes" blare from the stereos of teenage boys. At least 30% of woman ADMIT to being molested (this is those that admit it, I believe the true number is closer to 50%). Domestic violence is unseemingly common. The media rips apart their self-esteem (recent studies indicate on 2% of women believe they're beautiful). Then add the strains of raising the kids with little support from her husband (still common). ect., ect. I can see perfectly why many women take refuge in religion.

[garrisonjj]

garrisonjj asked a great question, that is worthy of a poll.

 

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=227360

 

I do not find as many female agnostics and atheists as males. Can females address this?

 

 

I look forward to the results to the poll and all of your responses.

 

(I rarely set up a poll - so please forgive me if this poll is awkward. Hope it works better this time around. )

 

 

I'd like to add another category to the poll such as "I don't give a fuck about religion or god if he exists or not!" both male and female answers.

[Former Follier]

I'm an atheist-leaning agnostic. The only hurdle I can't cross is the beginning of time (ie. the Big Bang or the six days of creation). Neither one makes any sense to me. If I were to choose one on a whim, though, I would have to say that I believe in a deistic entity creating all this shit rather than it just spontaneously coming into being from nothing. Can anyone shed some light?

 

So, I guess for classification's sake I'm an atheist.

[Open_Minded]

I'm an atheist-leaning agnostic. The only hurdle I can't cross is the beginning of time (ie. the Big Bang or the six days of creation). Neither one makes any sense to me. If I were to choose one on a whim, though, I would have to say that I believe in a deistic entity creating all this shit rather than it just spontaneously coming into being from nothing. Can anyone shed some light?

Hello Former Follier...

 

If it helps any - I'm Christian and I don't buy into the 6 day creation account. But, then I've never been taught to read the Bible literally, either.

 

I do believe in the Big Bang - it makes perfect sense to me. The Big Bang is overwhelmingly accepted (by legitimate science) as a valid theory for the beginning of the universe and the six day creation account is not even close to valid within a scientific study of the beginning of the universe.

 

You mentioned believing in a desitic entity creating all this - rather than it just spontaneously coming into being?

 

For me, there is no "deistic entity" "out there", beyond the universe? In my understanding of God and creation, creation is a physical expressioin of INFINITE, ETERNAL, MIND?

 

One of the things that really amazed me when I came on board, here, was how literalist Christianity teaches a supernatural understanding of God. God as an entity outside the universe. I don't get that - how can anything be outside the infinite universe? There are many who understand God as Mind and Intention (and Love and Compassion) within creation itself. God is - for us anyway - the Infinite MIND and INTENTION from which EVERYTHING UNFOLDED - including the Big Bang.

 

Just another slant - it can't be proven and I would make no attempt to treat what I just wrote with any scientific analysis - it's outside the abilitiy of science (right now) to address what I just wrote in a quantitative way.

[robbie]

Male agnostic.

 

As much as it will piss some people off, I don't consider myself to be an atheist, strictly speaking, and I don't think being an agnostic is the same thing.

 

When I say "I don't know if god(s) exist(s)" it is not, for me, the same as me saying "I don't know if Santa exists." What I'm saying in the first statement is that I think there is a genuine possibility that some greater being(s) exist(s), but in the second I'm saying that, strictly speaking, I cannot be certain of Santa's non-existence but reject it with all the certainty anyone with a limited human ability and understanding possibly can as I have absolutely no reason to believe in his existence. The latter (correct me if I'm wrong) is what I understand to be atheism...except substitute 'santa' for 'god' of course.

 

Also, I personally feel more open to different possibile spiritualities by not classifying myself as an atheist.

 

I guess I just prefer it...I'm having commitment issues when it comes to religion. I even hesitate to call myself an agnostic for fear of that being interpreted to mean I don't believe it is ever possible to know if god(s) exist(s).