Frustrated With Agnosticism

[robbie]

But I see most agnostics who believe it impossible to know if there are any gods in much the same way as atheists.

 

How do they know that? What is the source of this knowledge? How can you know?

 

In exactly the same way atheists 'know' there is no god. Because of a lack of evidence.

 

That's the problem; how do they know that one cannot know? I don't see any support for the position other than a belief based on faith.

 

They see no evidence that definite conclusions can be reached for humanity at present. That is looking at the evidence of millenia of human knowledge, and the vast conflicts in terms of theistic belief, and saying that there is not sufficient evidence to think that we can reach an accurate enough conclusion.

 

I highly doubt any agnostic is treating the question of the possibility of god-knowledge as some inviolable dogma. Rather, agnosticism looks at the evidence and reaches a (imo totally reasonable, if not necessarily entirely correct) conclusion.

 

To say agnostics treat the impossibility of god-knowledge like a tenet of a faith is exactly the same as saying atheists make a leap of faith to believe god doesn't exist...it's nonsense.

[Ouroboros]

I do give more credence and trust to scientists, but I do not claim that I personally can prove beyond reasonable doubt that string theory is true (and so far no one else can either, not even the scientists...).

That's one of the great things about science; we can say we haven't figured out that part yet, we can say I don't know. Besides, it wouldn't be any fun to have all the answers.

And that is an agnostic position.

 

And at the same time, I can actually "believe" or presuppose a strong possibility to the thought of string theory being correct or not. We do make up our minds, but we do it to many different degrees. I think string theory could be right, but only to a certain degree, just because there seems to be conflicts and problems with it, and it seems that it doesn't answer much anyway. So I "believe" that string theory is probaly half-right, but we don't know yet if it is or not. I do "believe" that the multiverse or maybe the braided space "theories" might be the answers, but no one knows it yet. So in the end, I do "believe" some things that I don't "know", and yet these things I listed here are presented by scientists and not by laymans or religious people. Why is that? Can we "believe" things that are scientific? How can that be? I strongly believe there is life on other planets, but we haven't found them yet. We have scientists that believe there must be life on other planets, and they're scientists. I think even Carl Sagan had this "belief". How can this be? Is there a level of "belief" in human nature that is not depending supernatural ideas or fiction or invisible beings?

[Dave]

How do they know that? What is the source of this knowledge? How can you know?

In exactly the same way atheists 'know' there is no god. Because of a lack of evidence.

Atheists do not 'know' there is no god, we lack a belief in god. The lack of evidence shows that a lack of belief in gods is logical but that lack of evidence is not a source of knowledge that one cannot know about gods.

 

They see no evidence that definite conclusions can be reached for humanity at present. That is looking at the evidence of millenia of human knowledge, and the vast conflicts in terms of theistic belief, and saying that there is not sufficient evidence to think that we can reach an accurate enough conclusion.

Yet, if I'm reading this right, the Agnostic according to your view, has made a definite conclusion that one cannot know something? That's what I'm trying to understand.

 

I highly doubt any agnostic is treating the question of the possibility of god-knowledge as some inviolable dogma. Rather, agnosticism looks at the evidence and reaches a (imo totally reasonable, if not necessarily entirely correct) conclusion.

A conclusion that I'm trying to understand but just cannot see for some reason. What is the source of the claim that one cannot know? Lack of evidence is a great base for lack of belief, but not for a claim that one cannot know.

 

To say agnostics treat the impossibility of god-knowledge like a tenet of a faith is exactly the same as saying atheists make a leap of faith to believe god doesn't exist...it's nonsense.

I still do not understand where you are getting the information that tells you that one cannot know about gods?

[Dave]

I do give more credence and trust to scientists, but I do not claim that I personally can prove beyond reasonable doubt that string theory is true (and so far no one else can either, not even the scientists...).

That's one of the great things about science; we can say we haven't figured out that part yet, we can say I don't know. Besides, it wouldn't be any fun to have all the answers.

And that is an agnostic position.

According to the the agnostic position presented here they claim that one cannot know about gods. Not that one is waiting for evidence that no gods exist but that they somehow have evidence that one cannot know about gods. I'm having a problem seeing that evidence.

 

And at the same time, I can actually "believe" or presuppose a strong possibility to the thought of string theory being correct or not. We do make up our minds, but we do it to many different degrees. I think string theory could be right, but only to a certain degree, just because there seems to be conflicts and problems with it, and it seems that it doesn't answer much anyway. So I "believe" that string theory is probaly half-right, but we don't know yet if it is or not. I do "believe" that the multiverse or maybe the braided space "theories" might be the answers, but no one knows it yet. So in the end, I do "believe" some things that I don't "know", and yet these things I listed here are presented by scientists and not by laymans or religious people. Why is that? Can we "believe" things that are scientific? How can that be? I strongly believe there is life on other planets, but we haven't found them yet. We have scientists that believe there must be life on other planets, and they're scientists. I think even Carl Sagan had this "belief". How can this be? Is there a level of "belief" in human nature that is not depending supernatural ideas or fiction or invisible beings?

There's that "belief" thing again. I have no 'beliefs' in science. I have some knowledge of science. I use that knowledge instead of relying on beliefs, it seems to work better for me. And I don't think the examples given here are applicable. In science we have proofs, models, evidence, and a method of sorting it all out. Religions and their gods have no such things. A belief that one cannot know something is not based on anything but a belief. I don't know how I can explain it any better, but I can see no basis what so ever for a belief that one cannot know about gods. It's an unsupportable claim, and a self contradicting claim. Once you claim you know that gods are unknowable, you are saying you know something about those gods.

[Ouroboros]

According to the the agnostic position presented here they claim that one cannot know about gods. Not that one is waiting for evidence that no gods exist but that they somehow have evidence that one cannot know about gods. I'm having a problem seeing that evidence.

I don't understand. You say that the agnostics claim they have proof that one can not know about gods? I thought agnosticism was the standpoint that you can not know because there are no proofs either way, not that it is proven that you can't know.

 

Can you elaborate on that point a bit more.

 

There's that "belief" thing again. I have no 'beliefs' in science. I have some knowledge of science. I use that knowledge instead of relying on beliefs, it seems to work better for me. And I don't think the examples given here are applicable. In science we have proofs, models, evidence, and a method of sorting it all out. Religions and their gods have no such things. A belief that one cannot know something is not based on anything but a belief. I don't know how I can explain it any better, but I can see no basis what so ever for a belief that one cannot know about gods. It's an unsupportable claim, and a self contradicting claim. Once you claim you know that gods are unknowable, you are saying you know something about those gods.

So you do claim to know for certainty that string theory is true or not true?

 

I don't understand why you are so afraid to use the word "belief". And I've seen it with many other atheists too, they are scared to be connected to any kind of belief of any kind. They don't "believe" what someone tell them, they can only know or not know things, but never believe anything.

 

I have no problem to say that I believe evolution is true.

 

I have no problem to say that I believe science is the best method to gain the best approximation of truth in our world.

 

I have no problem to say that I believe Hawkins, Dawkings, Darwin et.al give us a better explanation of nature and existence.

 

Personally, I am not afraid of using the word "belief" or being connected to that henious word in any way, and I can't really understand why some atheists are so frigging afraid of that word.

 

My wife work out of town, and when she comes home over the weekend, she tell me stories of what happened at her work place, and honestly I can't prove that she is telling me the truth or not, and I can't say that I know for certainty what really happened, but I do believe what she tell me because I trust her. And honestly, that's how I trust most scientists also. I trust them to tell me what they've found and what they figured out about nature, and I believe what they say to be true. On the other hand I don't believe what an ignorant religious fanatic extremist said in a book 2000 years ago, because I don't trust those books or those authors. But I do trust and believe most of the scientists in the scientific community.

 

I guess from now on, concluding from this conversation, I think I will take the standpoint that I do believe... in science, logic, reason and critical thinking.

 

So be it. That is my faith.

[Gary Thompson]

And thus, the ex-christians were sepearted into two factions, one of atheists, the other of agnostics. Human nature proves itself again.

[Ouroboros]

And thus, the ex-christians were sepearted into two factions, one of atheists, the other of agnostics. Human nature proves itself again.

*sigh* Not at all. I am an Atheist, but I'm a "weak" Atheist, and I'm an Agnostic; a "weak" Agnostic. But mostly I'm just a Non-Theist and a Skeptic. Why is it that in a debate it all comes down to that things are divided into black and white? Why is it that "if you're not a strong atheist, you must be an agnostic", but then we discuss "agnosticism is untenable". Is it that the only tenable position is Strong Atheism? Then why does every atheist (like me) say that "sure, I don't know that a god does not exist, but I don't believe there is a god?" To answer "I don't know" means that you are an Agnostic. "A" - "GNOSTIC" = Without Knowledge. It is one of the kinds of agnosticism, the weak kind, that say you can believe or not believe one thing or another, but you can not know one thing or another.

 

But I have no fears of using words like "belief" or "faith". I've seen several debates, and even I was taking that position before, that "belief" was a word that an atheist could not use, and I think that is bullshit. The way I believe in science, reason, logic, math, etc, is because it has been proven right again and again, and those things are supported by arguments and proofs way more convincing than the so called proofs for religious ideas. My faith in science is stronger than my faith ever was as Christian, just because of the single fact that belief in Christianity is built on hopes, ideas and emotions only, while science is built on ideas, facts, tangible proofs, tests, experiments and peer review scrutiny. Science is much more solid than religion ever can be, but at the same time, science do make mistakes - but corrects itself over time -; science sometimes become a fundamentalism for some and they can't let go of faulty ideas - but it usually is corrected in second or third generation -; science sometimes makes up crazy ideas that are unproven and untested and give it the wrong label "theory" - like string theory, but the way science works it will eventually be proven right or wrong and either lifted up as a real theory or forgotten -.

 

I even go further than that, I don't anymore say "I don't believe there is a god". Today I would say "I believe there is no god". Because I think the arguments are strong enough (for me at least) to be more certain it is true that god does not exist, but still ... I don't know it... I only believe it is so. And if someone can give me a proof that god does exist; convincing enough; I would change my mind. So see here: "I believe there is no god" = Atheism. "I don't know with 100% certainty" = Agnosticism. Believing vs Knowing. To me it is not the either or of these two things. You can believe one thing, and yet not know it for sure, even as an Atheist. But it can be a belief that is much stronger than religion ever was. Lets say belief in Jesus was a certainty level 10%, while belief in science is a certainty level of 99%. Where does the percentage make a belief into a knowledge? Is "I know so" established at 80% certainty, or 70% or 99% or 99.9%?

 

Now, is it wrong of me to believe there is no god? Should I really have to defend that position amongst atheists?

 

From what I understand from Dave is that he doesn't believe there is a god, and he doesn't believe there is no god. But he knows with 100% certainty that there is no god, which makes him a strong atheist. So what I see here is that we have a conflict between strong and weak atheism rather than atheism and agnosticism.

[Grandpa Harley]

Or even a "non-Christian"?

Guilty. If people start telling me about their imaginary friend, I tell 'em. If they push it into a bible pissing match it can get ugly.

[Gary Thompson]

And thus, the ex-christians were sepearted into two factions, one of atheists, the other of agnostics. Human nature proves itself again.

*sigh* Not at all. I am an Atheist, but I'm a "weak" Atheist, and I'm an Agnostic; a "weak" Agnostic. But mostly I'm just a Non-Theist and a Skeptic. Why is it that in a debate it all comes down to that things are divided into black and white? Why is it that "if you're not a strong atheist, you must be an agnostic", but then we discuss "agnosticism is untenable". Is it that the only tenable position is Strong Atheism? Then why does every atheist (like me) say that "sure, I don't know that a god does not exist, but I don't believe there is a god?" To answer "I don't know" means that you are an Agnostic. "A" - "GNOSTIC" = Without Knowledge. It is one of the kinds of agnosticism, the weak kind, that say you can believe or not believe one thing or another, but you can not know one thing or another.

 

But I have no fears of using words like "belief" or "faith". I've seen several debates, and even I was taking that position before, that "belief" was a word that an atheist could not use, and I think that is bullshit. The way I believe in science, reason, logic, math, etc, is because it has been proven right again and again, and those things are supported by arguments and proofs way more convincing than the so called proofs for religious ideas. My faith in science is stronger than my faith ever was as Christian, just because of the single fact that belief in Christianity is built on hopes, ideas and emotions only, while science is built on ideas, facts, tangible proofs, tests, experiments and peer review scrutiny. Science is much more solid than religion ever can be, but at the same time, science do make mistakes - but corrects itself over time -; science sometimes become a fundamentalism for some and they can't let go of faulty ideas - but it usually is corrected in second or third generation -; science sometimes makes up crazy ideas that are unproven and untested and give it the wrong label "theory" - like string theory, but the way science works it will eventually be proven right or wrong and either lifted up as a real theory or forgotten -.

 

I even go further than that, I don't anymore say "I don't believe there is a god". Today I would say "I believe there is no god". Because I think the arguments are strong enough (for me at least) to be more certain it is true that god does not exist, but still ... I don't know it... I only believe it is so. And if someone can give me a proof that god does exist; convincing enough; I would change my mind. So see here: "I believe there is no god" = Atheism. "I don't know with 100% certainty" = Agnosticism. Believing vs Knowing. To me it is not the either or of these two things. You can believe one thing, and yet not know it for sure, even as an Atheist. But it can be a belief that is much stronger than religion ever was. Lets say belief in Jesus was a certainty level 10%, while belief in science is a certainty level of 99%. Where does the percentage make a belief into a knowledge? Is "I know so" established at 80% certainty, or 70% or 99% or 99.9%?

 

Now, is it wrong of me to believe there is no god? Should I really have to defend that position amongst atheists?

 

From what I understand from Dave is that he doesn't believe there is a god, and he doesn't believe there is no god. But he knows with 100% certainty that there is no god, which makes him a strong atheist. So what I see here is that we have a conflict between strong and weak atheism rather than atheism and agnosticism.

 

All I'm trying to say is that this arguement over weak atheism, strong atheism and agnosticism greatly resembles the arguements between organized religions. Look what we've become.

[Ouroboros]

All I'm trying to say is that this arguement over weak atheism, strong atheism and agnosticism greatly resembles the arguements between organized religions. Look what we've become.

That is true. And I agree, that is human nature. But it also what we want to have, freedom of choice and freedom of thought. That means individual thougts, ideas, opinions etc. You know, most of our opinions and ideas are built on experience and collected information over time, so my ideas and opinions are based on my life, and your ideas and opinions on your life. Which means, we can not think and reason the exact same way. We must have, by the sheer nature of things, different ways of reaching conclusions and think about things. That also means we very likely will have different opinions, not necessarily detrimental; they can be similar, but never exactly the same. So I'd take it even further to say that conflict is the nature of existence. Things are similar and different. Two apples are never exactly the same. But they're still apples.

[Gary Thompson]

All I'm trying to say is that this arguement over weak atheism, strong atheism and agnosticism greatly resembles the arguements between organized religions. Look what we've become.

That is true. And I agree, that is human nature. But it also what we want to have, freedom of choice and freedom of thought. That means individual thougts, ideas, opinions etc. You know, most of our opinions and ideas are built on experience and collected information over time, so my ideas and opinions are based on my life, and your ideas and opinions on your life. Which means, we can not think and reason the exact same way. We must have, by the sheer nature of things, different ways of reaching conclusions and think about things. That also means we very likely will have different opinions, not necessarily detrimental; they can be similar, but never exactly the same. So I'd take it even further to say that conflict is the nature of existence. Things are similar and different. Two apples are never exactly the same. But they're still apples.

 

I see your point. But I still think the bickering is a bit much.

[Dave]

I don't understand. You say that the agnostics claim they have proof that one can not know about gods? I thought agnosticism was the standpoint that you can not know because there are no proofs either way, not that it is proven that you can't know.

 

Can you elaborate on that point a bit more.

From the definitions I've read here it seems they're claiming you can't know. Lack of proof doesn't mean one cannot know. That's the part I don't get; the source of the cannot know.

 

So you do claim to know for certainty that string theory is true or not true?

Nope, never made that claim. Because I do not possess all the information about, or do not completely understand, string theory does not mean I cannot know.

 

I don't understand why you are so afraid to use the word "belief". And I've seen it with many other atheists too, they are scared to be connected to any kind of belief of any kind. They don't "believe" what someone tell them, they can only know or not know things, but never believe anything.

I don't use it for the reasons I've explained. People automatically equate the word belief with a religious style faith.

[Dave]

And thus, the ex-christians were sepearted into two factions, one of atheists, the other of agnostics. Human nature proves itself again.

Since agnostics lack a belief in gods they are Atheists.

[Dave]

All I'm trying to say is that this arguement over weak atheism, strong atheism and agnosticism greatly resembles the arguements between organized religions. Look what we've become.

I agree.

[Amethyst]

All I'm trying to say is that this arguement over weak atheism, strong atheism and agnosticism greatly resembles the arguements between organized religions. Look what we've become.

I agree.

 

I have to agree too. It's no better than the fundies saying so-and-so isn't a Real True Christian . Are we now to judge who is and who is not a Real True Unbeliever ? Why can't we just live and let live?

[woodsmoke]

I see your point. But I still think the bickering is a bit much.

 

I don't. I think it's the glue that holds Dave's house together.

 

I think seeing disagreements and conflicts over personal decisions such as which faith/label a person chooses for her/himself as being indicative of deeper problems within the community is fallacious, and does a disservice to the journey all of us here have come through.

 

You compare what's happening here with conflicts between Christian sects--but think about that. What happens when there's a substantial conflict within an organized, dogmatic religious community? Disagreements lead to fractures, and the seams begin to show. In most cases, the dissenters are ostracized and ultimately there's a split within the sect. Everyone involved goes their own way, nursing bruised feelings and wounded pride, and the seperate camps never converse with one another again except to fling feces.

 

Now contrast that with what happens when there's a disagreement here. Someone expresses dissent on a topic, and others weigh in with their opinions. No one takes her/his ball and goes home, and only (extremely) rarely does one side feel an unwelcome hostility from the other. Words may get heated and feelings may get bruised; we may come to a consensus on the issue, or we may not. Ultimately, however, we all agree or disagree as befits our thoughts and feelings on the matter, and in virtually every case we move on with all involved parties still around.

 

We don't have to agree on everything anymore. We're free to respectfully voice dissent to someone else's opinion or beliefs as we please and, further, ask why (s)he holds those beliefs ("respectfully" here meaning treating the other person to the golden rule, not necessarily being timid and ready to rescind one's questions in the face of misplaced offense or the idea another person's beliefs are somehow unassailable). The ability to ask questions, to take an unpopular stance and speak up about something over which others may strongly disagree with one is one of the prizes we all got for finding the end of the Christian maze.

 

We're allowed to be different, disparate and diverse--to fight like cats in a bag on one issue, agree unanimously on another which seems closely related, lightly contend with even temper a few relatively minor details on a third and, at the end of the day, all go out drinking and singing together like a group of childhood friends at a pub.

 

That's the beauty of ExC.

[Dave]

I have to agree too. It's no better than the fundies saying so-and-so isn't a Real True Christian . Are we now to judge who is and who is not a Real True Unbeliever ? Why can't we just live and let live?

We're all Atheists here (well.... most of us) so why divide into small groups of soft, hard, implicit, explicit, or whatever. If you lack a belief in a god, for whatever reason, you're an Atheist. It's a good word. Don't throw it out just because some christian wants to make it a negative label. Educate them (if possible). I'm not saying that all Atheists have to be of a unified mind, all one needs is to lack belief in gods. You can make any personal statement you want after that one qualifier has been met.

[robbie]

Many agnostics, it seems to me, are not saying that they have positive evidence that it is absolutely impossible to know if gods exist. That is a hard position to understand, as has been said, and it is a complete strawman so don't bother trying to understand it.

 

Agnostics lack a belief in humanity's ability to reach a conclusion on gods' existence in the same way that atheists lack a belief in god's existence.

[robbie]

We're all Atheists here (well.... most of us) so why divide into small groups of soft, hard, implicit, explicit, or whatever. If you lack a belief in a god, for whatever reason, you're an Atheist. It's a good word. Don't throw it out just because some christian wants to make it a negative label. Educate them (if possible). I'm not saying that all Atheists have to be of a unified mind, all one needs is to lack belief in gods. You can make any personal statement you want after that one qualifier has been met.

 

And how does this differ from organised religion's attempt to categorise people and label them against their will as 'saved' or 'unsaved', or whatever other dichotomy has been set up? If someone doesn't think of themselves as an atheist, who are we or anyone else to force that label onto them?

[Dave]

Many agnostics, it seems to me, are not saying that they have positive evidence that it is absolutely impossible to know if gods exist. That is a hard position to understand, as has been said, and it is a complete strawman so don't bother trying to understand it.

I haven't been responding to that strawman, but to the claim that some make that it is impossible to know about gods, not their existence, but knowledge of them.

 

Agnostics lack a belief in humanity's ability to reach a conclusion on gods' existence in the same way that atheists lack a belief in god's existence.

I guess my problem is that since I can understand that the only source of knowledge about gods is mythology, I figure that we can reach a conclusion. Do we also "lack the ability to reach a conclusion" on the existence of Superman, the Easter Bunny, mermaids, faeries, and all such other myths or stories? I see no reason to give the god idea any more credence by withholding conclusions than any of those other myths I mentioned.

[Dave]

We're all Atheists here (well.... most of us) so why divide into small groups of soft, hard, implicit, explicit, or whatever. If you lack a belief in a god, for whatever reason, you're an Atheist. It's a good word. Don't throw it out just because some christian wants to make it a negative label. Educate them (if possible). I'm not saying that all Atheists have to be of a unified mind, all one needs is to lack belief in gods. You can make any personal statement you want after that one qualifier has been met.

And how does this differ from organised religion's attempt to categorise people and label them against their will as 'saved' or 'unsaved', or whatever other dichotomy has been set up?

It's extremely different. I'm trying to be inclusive, not exclusive.

 

If someone doesn't think of themselves as an atheist, who are we or anyone else to force that label onto them?

They can be as mistaken as they want to be. They can be the ones doing the dividing. They can be the ones setting up dichotomies. I'll stick with the inclusive definition of Atheism and try to bring us all together.

[Gary Thompson]

I see your point. But I still think the bickering is a bit much.

 

I don't. I think it's the glue that holds Dave's house together.

 

I think seeing disagreements and conflicts over personal decisions such as which faith/label a person chooses for her/himself as being indicative of deeper problems within the community is fallacious, and does a disservice to the journey all of us here have come through.

 

You compare what's happening here with conflicts between Christian sects--but think about that. What happens when there's a substantial conflict within an organized, dogmatic religious community? Disagreements lead to fractures, and the seams begin to show. In most cases, the dissenters are ostracized and ultimately there's a split within the sect. Everyone involved goes their own way, nursing bruised feelings and wounded pride, and the seperate camps never converse with one another again except to fling feces.

 

Now contrast that with what happens when there's a disagreement here. Someone expresses dissent on a topic, and others weigh in with their opinions. No one takes her/his ball and goes home, and only (extremely) rarely does one side feel an unwelcome hostility from the other. Words may get heated and feelings may get bruised; we may come to a consensus on the issue, or we may not. Ultimately, however, we all agree or disagree as befits our thoughts and feelings on the matter, and in virtually every case we move on with all involved parties still around.

 

We don't have to agree on everything anymore. We're free to respectfully voice dissent to someone else's opinion or beliefs as we please and, further, ask why (s)he holds those beliefs ("respectfully" here meaning treating the other person to the golden rule, not necessarily being timid and ready to rescind one's questions in the face of misplaced offense or the idea another person's beliefs are somehow unassailable). The ability to ask questions, to take an unpopular stance and speak up about something over which others may strongly disagree with one is one of the prizes we all got for finding the end of the Christian maze.

 

We're allowed to be different, disparate and diverse--to fight like cats in a bag on one issue, agree unanimously on another which seems closely related, lightly contend with even temper a few relatively minor details on a third and, at the end of the day, all go out drinking and singing together like a group of childhood friends at a pub.

 

That's the beauty of ExC.

 

Very well written. I understand what you mean. I've just always been a pussy when it comes to conflict I guess. And one or two of the other members concurred (not that you guys a pussies). To each his own.

 

Oh yeah, who's Dave?

[Purple]

I have to agree too. It's no better than the fundies saying so-and-so isn't a Real True Christian . Are we now to judge who is and who is not a Real True Unbeliever ? Why can't we just live and let live?

We're all Atheists here (well.... most of us) so why divide into small groups of soft, hard, implicit, explicit, or whatever. If you lack a belief in a god, for whatever reason, you're an Atheist. It's a good word. Don't throw it out just because some christian wants to make it a negative label. Educate them (if possible). I'm not saying that all Atheists have to be of a unified mind, all one needs is to lack belief in gods. You can make any personal statement you want after that one qualifier has been met.

 

 

Wrong, I can make any personal statement I want... period. I'm not an atheist, I use agnostic because it is the closest to what I do think and believe. Do you know me? Do you know what I think, believe and feel? No, well then guess what you don't get to decide what I am.

[Purple]

It's extremely different. I'm trying to be inclusive, not exclusive.

 

If someone doesn't think of themselves as an atheist, who are we or anyone else to force that label onto them?

They can be as mistaken as they want to be. They can be the ones doing the dividing. They can be the ones setting up dichotomies. I'll stick with the inclusive definition of Atheism and try to bring us all together.

 

"You can be wrong if you want to." Was one of the fave sayings of a very fundie So Bap pastor I knew. Until I share only I know what I think, believe and feel. Atheist is to have no belief in any god, this descrition does not fit me, agnostic, which is saying "I havn't a clue." does. The atheist lable does not fit me because of the situation I happen to be in in reguards to gods that are not xian, my thoughts, beliefs and feelings about them, even though I am not a follower of any god. Being a follower is different than believeing. Although I'm not sure I'd say I even believe in them I cannot, and will not say I don't. Hence, I'm an agnostic. Now you could say I am an atheist abot some gods, the xian god being one, but to go through all the gods there ever was and state which I am atheist about and which I am agnostic about seem utterly ridiculous to me, so, since sometimes people just really erally want a lable foprm you, I choose agnostic, as it is the best descrition of my belief. Some may even say I am a theist, but, since I can't right now say I believe these particular gods do exist that lable does not fit either.

[R. S. Martin]

If I remember correctly, then one person in this conversation is not an exChristian and that is Dave. I understand he has never been a Christian. Therefore, it logically follows that he cannot be expected to speak like one concerning god. Nor can he be expected to know what it feels like being an exChristian who grapples with the concept of god and hell and all that crap. I think we are quite in line not to give as much weight to his opinions around exC feelings and opinions as we do to real exChristians. A real exChristian is a person who at one time self-identified as a Christian and does not at the moment self-identify as a Christian. I think we all agree on that.