This article is not a rebuke of Separation of Church and State. The focus of this article will be on Agnosticism and Agnostics.

This Discussion is Open to Conservatives, Liberals, Agnostics, Atheists, QUESTIONING: WELCOME!

Agnostics are simply atheists who don't want to admit it.  The modern definition of the word 'atheist' tends to suggest that it means some sort of positive assertion that there is no god, but what the word literally means is 'not a theist,' that is, without a particular belief in a particular god.  It shouldn't even be a word, really.  We don't refer to people who don't drive a car as 'adrivers'  Or those who don't hunt, 'ahunters.'  You don't describe people by what they are not.

Atheism is nothing.  It's merely the default position of every human.  We are all born atheists; god belief has to be taught and learned.

If religions were channels on a tv, atheism would be the off button, and agnosticism would be the mute button.

atheism would be the off button, and agnosticism would be the mute button. 

Hi Hal! Is that true? The Freedom From Religion Foundation turned itself "on" in 1978 and we can hear them quite loudly today. And, in the 19th century, Robert G. Ingersoll was something of an Atheist touring "rock-star" with his lectures against religion, no?

I do like what you wrote about Agnosticism, however.

It sounds like you're whining about the FFRF.   Given that they do very good work defending the Establishment clause what is your gripe against them?

"Whining" ——there is none. I would have thought by now my purpose was better understood. I will continue my efforts to clarify who I am through my example.

This article is asking a question:

What claim does FFRF activists make on Agnostics to call after these people "with alarm" as a group or bloc (which they are not) to join Atheists in protesting activities of Christians, namely Right-wing Evangelicals? 

What is glaringly missing in the FFRF ad above is an inclusive appeal to Progressive Christians and other peoples of Faith who do not support any "distressing" and adverse activities of some of their church brethren! As Hal stated, and I do not quote our brother lightly: 'Agnostics are muted.'

What claim does FFRF activists make on Agnostics to call after these people "with alarm" as a group or bloc (which they are not) to join Atheists in protesting activities of Christians, namely Right-wing Evangelicals?

I guess I don't understand that question since the ad notes the the FFRF is an association of atheists and agnostics.    I'm both.

.

What is glaringly missing in the FFRF ad above is an inclusive appeal to Progressive Christians and other peoples of Faith who do not support any "distressing" and adverse activities of some of their church brethren!

Another organization already exists to do that - Americans United.

I guess I don't understand that question since the ad notes the the FFRF is an association of atheists and agnostics. I'm both.

You mean in the sense of "Agnostic-Atheist"(charted above)? Consider this definition for Agnostic:

In popular usage, an agnostic may just be someone who takes no position, pro or con, on the existence of gods, or who has not yet been able to decide, or who suspends judgment due to lack of evidence one way or the other (weak agnosticism).

People think about Agnosticism in this manner as well. So I am 'concerned' that FFRF is seeking to turn these people into activists through outreach.

So I am 'concerned' that FFRF is seeking to turn these people into activists through outreach.

Yeah, that would certainly be something to concern yourself about.

In fact it's part of the FFRF's mission to spread the Good News that beliefs in "gods" are mere superstition.   Here's their mission statement:

The purposes of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., as stated in its bylaws, are to promote the constitutional principle of separation of state and church, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.

In fact it's part of the FFRF's mission to spread the Good News that beliefs in "gods" are mere superstition.

About the Foundation FAQ

I don't think the FFRF hides the fact that they seek donors & new members or that they actively try to educate the public about atheism, particularly given the pervasive and irrational stigma against atheists.

While I'm a donor and I definitely do support their education efforts and their legal work, I don't endorse the proselytizing they engage in.   I think that comes primarily from Dan Barker who was an evangelical minister before he became an atheist.....and he brings the same zealotry to his new cause.

Maybe you are correct in your statements. I did read on the website that the founder and Dan Barker are married. I do know of Mr. Barker from research in the past. Again, I applaud the open and honest discussion. Thank you, warmly. I learn too, when others talk to me.

What is glaringly missing in the FFRF ad above is an inclusive appeal to Progressive Christians and other peoples of Faith who do not support any "distressing" and adverse activities of some of their church brethren! As Hal stated, and I do not quote our brother lightly: 'Agnostics are muted.'

You don't have to be either agnostic or atheist to defend the strict separation of chich and state. I would think that all religions would want to keep religion out of government and government out of religion.

The Freedom From RelgionFoundation or the ACLU are not in any way trying to put an end to religious belief or organized religion. 

Agnostics are simply atheists who don't want to admit it. . . . . Atheism is nothing.

Hi,  lennylynx! In your comment did you empty out the long-standing meaning of, "Atheism" and poured into it the age-old meaning of, "Agnosticism"? Curious.

I can not believe in something powerful enough to make everything but hides from what he made

He’s just camera shy.  He still talks to certain people, like Pat Robertson and Michelle Bachman.  

If I was all powerful they would not be who I would pick

He’s just camera shy.

Sort of like bigfoot then?

I can not believe in something powerful enough to make everything but hides from what he made

“We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.”
― Gene Roddenberry

“We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.” 
― Gene Roddenberry

i think that's a good quote and should be thought provoking to all sides (believers and non-believers). I also wonder about a God who creates everything (including the devil) but simply can't "win" against the devil which supposedly is one of the reasons that God's creations do such horrible things.

i think that's a good quote and should be thought provoking to all sides (believers and non-believers).

I think so too.

These are million dollar questions for all of humanity to ponder, even our great minded deceased brother, Gene! The 'hard spot' of having an evolving human brain is it lack of capacity to comprehend all there is to know in the hear and now. Consider this: Could God be waiting for humanity to "catch up"? Clearly, humanity is advancing at an accelerating, slow, and regressive pace toward collective improvement.  Maybe one day it will come?

Me three. (-:

Glad we all agree.

Could God be waiting for humanity to "catch up"?

Of course.   Anytime one speculates about an abstract creator one is in an area of possibility (the existence of a creator) surrounded by an ocean of endless human speculation (what God wants, what God is made of, what God plans for us, why God made us, does God care, ...).   And, importantly, as far as our mere human brains can tell we really have no idea - none whatsoever - the answer to any of those questions.  We also do not have anything other than our own imagination to support the concept of a creator (God).  

All we know is that we exist (somehow) and that it is possible that a creator also exists (or existed) who produced us and our hosting universe.

Actually we have more shared experience to guide us along. After-all, we can talk to smartphones and computers now and get accurate responses and reactions! This we do and experience exponentially, even while we assent to being simply mere mortals. Commonsense, then, can tell us that anything more advanced than ourselves is exceptionally intelligent and not the contrast. Furthermore, it is reasonable to suggest the universe is smart, for all our discoveries come from its substances! Our prepared universe, imagine that! Still, I digress, nevertheless. This has limited association with our topic on Agnosticism.
.

Why do Atheist seek to 'recruit' Agnostics? Why do Atheists have a non-profit organization? Why are Atheists organizing? What will this organization project its existence to be several generations from today?

Commonsense, then, can tell us that anything more advanced than ourselves is exceptionally intelligent and not the contrast.

Certainly.   Did someone suggest that a creator would necessarily be less intelligent than its creations?    Certainly possible, but I have never noticed anyone argue that if there is a sentient creator that it would necessarily be less intelligent than that which it purposely created.

Note that does nothing to establish the likelihood of such a creator.   And (if your are interested) I can explain to you how it is possible for something at one level of intelligence to create something that ultimately is more intelligent than the creator.   (But that would be another article).

Why do Atheist seek to 'recruit' Agnostics? Why do Atheists have a non-profit organization? 

An atheist is simply someone who is not convinced there is a god.   So the concept of recruitment does not stem from 'atheism' but rather from an organization.   I can see how an organization of atheists would seek to increase their members and recruit individuals who are not convinced there is a God.   Why does this even raise a question?

Why are Atheists organizing?

I suppose that varies per organization.   Given  I am not part of any such organization your guess is as good as mine.  Go find an organization and read up on it is all I can suggest.

What will this organization project its existence to be several generations from today?

(see above)

Did someone suggest that a creator would necessarily be less intelligent than its creations?

Actually a non-sentient "creator" is one interpretation of Spinoza's god.

Agreed.   I was trying to keep Calbab on the 'creator' God aspect regarding relative intelligence of a sentient creator so as to discuss that before moving into the non-sentient (where lower intelligence is by definition).

I can see how an organization of atheists would seek to increase their members and recruit individuals who are not convinced there is a God.

How and why? And as you are not a part of any atheist organization, pray tell what can become of an atheist organization that strives to get on ONE-ACCORD, with a non-profit tax exemption. Please, can you even make an attempt?

Certainly possible, but I have never noticed anyone argue that if there is a sentient creator that it would necessarily be less intelligent than that which it purposely created.

Anyone remember Lawnmower Man?

How and why?

Any organization that is based on membership is naturally motivated to increase its numbers.

And as you are not a part of any atheist organization, pray tell what can become of an atheist organization that strives to get on ONE-ACCORD, with a non-profit tax exemption.

If an organization forms and operates as non-profit then they are within the law.   Not sure what the problem is.   Just because they are atheists?

Please, can you even make an attempt?

Make an attempt to do what?

These are million dollar questions for all of humanity to ponder, even our great minded deceased brother, Gene! The 'hard spot' of having an evolving human brain is it lack of capacity to comprehend all there is to know in the hear and now. Consider this: Could God be waiting for humanity to "catch up"? Clearly, humanity is advancing at an accelerating, slow, and regressive pace toward collective improvement.

How can God possibly be waiting for the human race to catch up when he supposedly spoke to Moses, Paul, and Abraham?

 I can imagine anything but I also understand that just because I can imagine something doesn't mean that it is factual or true. 

How can humanity logically be accelerating at a slow and regressive pace when technology makes that rate of acceleration exponential?

How can humanity logically be accelerating at a slow and regressive pace when technology makes that rate of acceleration exponential?

I don't think that directly impacts this issue since man hasn't changed much at all genetically in the past 100,000 years.    So while technology and culture have advanced most people as individuals still tend to be superstitious and irrational.   Apart from the tribalism aspect I suspect it's part of a survival instinct.    I see the same irrational superstitious behavior in my cat......if it gets spooked once it tends to be wary whenever it's near the same place.

I ask questions, because Agnosticism involves epistemology – What one knows. Atheism has to do with belief — What one believes (“There is no God”). It’s not knowing over and against not believing. 

Agnosticism is indeed dealing with what one knows .   Theism deals with religious belief (belief in one or more gods).    

However, people commonly use the term 'agnostic' to refer to their religious views.   How can that be?   Well when 'agnostic' is applied to religious beliefs it is simply a vague shorthand for someone who is not certain that their religious beliefs are true.  This, I submit, is a rational, healthy position.

To better understand how the notion of knowledge and belief work together in a sensible fashion these concepts are explained in detail here .   A summary:

Combining religious  belief  with  knowledge  yields four positions regarding religious belief:

• Gnostic Theist — 100% certain their deity(ies) exist; no other possibilities
• Agnostic Theist — believes in at least one deity yet acknowledges may be mistaken
• Agnostic Atheist — no belief in a deity but open to persuasive evidence to the contrary
• Gnostic Atheist — 100% certain no deity exists;  no other possibilities

How do Agnostics get ‘drawn together’ with Atheists? Are Agnostics really members of any Atheist sect?

When someone refers to their religious views as 'agnostic' they are stating that they are either an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.   And, based upon how people operate, agnostic theists tend to call themselves theists (rather than 'agnostic') so most people who claim to be 'agnostic' are actually agnostic atheists.   They do not believe (are not convinced) in a god but are quite willing to admit that they could be wrong.

Agnostic Theist — believes in at least one deity yet acknowledges may be mistaken. Agnostic Atheist — no belief in a deity but open to persuasive evidence to the contrary.

Can you provide me background on where these two phrases derive from, when they were first used, and possibly who first stated each one: "Agnostic theist" and "Agnostic Atheist"?

The etymology is tough to trace.   There are quite a few pieces on the web regarding these distinctions using the terms agnostic theist and agnostic atheist.   There are related discussions using different terms (e.g. strong vs. weak atheist).   Same basic concept but different terminology.   I do know that the formal distinctions have been around for a very long time.

According to Wikipedia , ...

One of the earliest definitions of agnostic atheism is that of  Robert Flint , in his Croall Lecture of 1887–1888 (published in 1903 under the title  Agnosticism ).

There are various labels (of course) for these concepts and different people have slight variations in wording and meaning.  But the basic idea is captured in what I wrote.

the basic idea is captured in what I wrote.

Where did you capture what you wrote? (Your source of information, please.)

My comment quoted from my article here on NT .   Are you asking for a bibliography for my article?    If so, note that it was an original article summarizing some rather established ideas for the purposes of clarity.   If you are interested in what others have to say on this topic then Google the terms and you will find various treatments using the exact same language and similar language.

Maybe if you asked a specific question I could give a better answer. 

You wrote an original article summarizing some rather established ideas. . . .

Well, if you wish to withhold your sources from this discussion I cannot stop you. Just curious.

Well, if you wish to withhold your sources from this discussion I cannot stop you. Just curious.

An excellent admission that you are simply playing a juvenile game (as if anyone was fooled).

Quoting myself:

TiG:   note that it was an original article summarizing some rather established ideas for the purposes of clarity.

Unnecessary explanation of the above :   My article is not a summary of specific sources but rather a summary of well-established terms using labels and terms that I have long since committed to memory.  Not sure I could construct a list of my actual sources if I even made the attempt since they occurred over time (decades even).   I could lie and just give you some sources but dishonesty is not my bag.  To wit ... one can go to my article to understand the concepts, then go and verify if the article is an accurate summary or skip the article and just check out what others have written on these concepts.    If you would like sources to verify that my summary is correct then just issue this search to Google:

agnostic-atheist, agnostic-theist      or      gnostic atheist

This will deliver a list of articles.   You can also click the Images tab to see various charts that you may be surprised to see correlate well with my article.   Click the image and you will often find an article describing the image.   Bottom line, these are old concepts that are simply not well known, but plenty has been written about them for you to verify.   Have at it.

Someone please explain what I wrote to Calbab.   I am convinced that I have been clear, so maybe if it came from someone else it will have a positive effect.   

An excellent admission that you are simply playing a juvenile game (as if anyone was fooled).

And. you do not? Make 'sport' of others? (Remember it your next internet 'roast.')

So the terms are sourced prior to becoming a work by you? This 'iteration' of these terms under review are definitely from your mind? You are a standard-maker?

"Someone please explain what I wrote to Calbab."  What was that I wrote about "internet roasting"?  What did you write just now about 'playing juvenile'?

And. you do not?

No, Calbab, I debate (and discuss).   I do not play games.

So the terms are sourced prior to becoming a work by you? This 'iteration' of these terms under review are definitely from your mind? You are a standard-maker?

The above is gibberish.  How can you suggest I am acting as a standard maker if you recognize that the terms were already out there?  Hello?

Also, why are you triggering this derail of your own article?

I think what we are seeing here is interpersonal prognostics. 

You acknowledge you have no source to point readers to look over a set of terms you deliberately sat to write an article on and just now twice linked in this thread. Two terms, by the way, which are rapidly receding into the background. EXCEPTION: You are the source of the terms on your article. Consequently, it is reasonable for me to question if  you are setting the standard. How many times have we had drummed into our minds that free-thinkers do not follow authority? Offhandedly and rather casually you admit to following 'anonymous' sources for your terms under question, but I am wrong for pointing it out? I think not!

You acknowledge you have no source to point readers to look over a set of terms you deliberately sat to write an article on and just now twice linked in this thread.

TiG is correct in his usage of the terms agnostic, gnostic, theist and atheist.    A little homework on your part and you'll see that he's correct.

I am not derailing my article. It would please me mightily, if we can get back to Agnosticism and the FFRF.

See in red font below, this is the version of Agnosticism most likely meant by non-confessing people in everyday communication/discussion. Note, the last two items in the list. TiG, do they match your definitions for the two terms? Curious.

Hi Perrie, we strive together against bias and that is a positive. Probably we can get better. . .over. . . a. . . .really. . . long. . .time. (Smile!)

You acknowledge you have no source to point readers to look over a set of terms you deliberately sat to write an article on and just now twice linked in this thread.

You read the opposite of what I write.  I am pretty sure I just gave a Google query that will deliver corroborating material for my summary.   

... you  deliberately  sat to write an article on  and  just now twice linked in this thread.

I did indeed write an article.   Deliberately.   

Two terms, by the way, which are rapidly receding into the background.

Which terms are those?   

EXCEPTION:  You are the source of the terms on  your  article.

To state that you would have to literally ignore everything I have written since you started this derail of your article.   But your statement is so easily shown to be false.   All one need do is find material on the web that correlates with my summary article.   I gave you the Google query.  

Consequently, it is reasonable for me to question if  you are setting the standard.

Except your prior statement is the opposite of the truth (and the opposite of what I have written) so your logic is ... not.

How many times have we had drummed into our minds that free-thinkers do not follow authority?

I think it is more of not blindly following authority.   A new topic?

Offhandedly and rather casually you admit to following 'anonymous' sources for your terms under question, but I am wrong for pointing it out? I think not!

I did not state (or admit) that my article followed anonymous sources.   So you are indeed wrong for pointing out that which is demonstrably not true.   

Here is an analogy, let's say that you write an article summarizing the major differences between the Old and New covenants.   This is information I presume is well established in your mind based upon your decades of religious study.   Now if you did not go out and gather a list of perfunctory sources in a bibliography does that mean you just made this stuff up?    Further, if it is quite easy to locate articles that corroborate your summary how silly is it for someone to refuse to even do the query and instead stubbornly insist (repeatedly) that you are making things up?    

Bottom line, anyone can easily verify that my article summarized established ideas.   One can just use Google (see the query I provided) and without great surprise one will find graphics and articles talking about the knowledge vs. belief axis which breaks into four quadrants that typically are labeled gnostic atheist, agnostic atheist, agnostic theist and gnostic theist (or equivalent).

You are simply wrong Calbab.   180 degrees off.   Now how about asking a question relevant to the blog you wrote?    Because if you continue to make accusations, I will of course continue to show where you are wrong.   I will defend myself against the attacks.   So your call - especially since you are the author here.  Get back on topic or keep derailing?

See 4.1.14 above please.

And TiG, stop with the condescension. It takes up space and is unnecessarily verbose. If there is impatience involved or irritation, perhaps time can be better spent debating and discussion on another article. I write often! I do not wish to disrespect you, and I never allow anybody to disrespect me.

Note, the last two items in the list. TiG, do they match your definitions for the two terms? Curious.

Why is that 'curious'?   Unless you are under the (inexplicable) impression that everyone agrees on terminology the fact that there are differences should be taken as expected.   

Pointing out your (obvious) mistakes is not condescension.   Gratuitously tossing out labels such as 'condescension', however, is a well-known bad tactic.  

If there is impatience involved or irritation,  ....

As I have told you repeatedly, this is your article and you initiated and are driving a full derail.    If you want to exploit your own article to try to divine a 'gotcha' on me I will continue to calmly illustrate the flaws in your allegations.  Stop making allegations and magically my comments in defense will cease.

I will end it here. 

Please stop addressing commenters here with a so-called superior "acid" tone. Please do not mar my articles with extraneous "graffiti" under pretense that it supplies reason and logic to the discussion. Reason and logic is important and helpful. More importantly, reason and logic are kind.

Confrontation, combativeness, being argumentative and negative, divisive, and persistently uncooperative to allow the discussion to "breathe" means it gets smothered and that is unkind. If that is what comes with . . . Go Away.

I will end it here.

Not when you end with an attack.

Please stop addressing commenters here with a so-called superior "acid" tone. Please do not mar my articles with extraneous "graffiti" under pretense that it supplies reason and logic to the discussion. Reason and logic is important and helpful. More importantly, reason and logic are kind.

Again you toss out derogatory allegations while demanding that this derail of your making cease.   The way to stop the derail is to not make further derogatory allegations.

Confrontation, combativeness, being argumentative and negative, divisive, and persistently uncooperative to allow the discussion to "breathe" means it gets smothered and that is unkind. If that is what comes with . . . Go Away.

Calbab, it is almost as though you are looking in a mirror when writing.   Seriously man, just stop attacking and I will not need to defend.  

Someone please explain what I wrote to Calbab. I am convinced that I have been clear, so maybe if it came from someone else it will have a positive effect.

TiG, I don't think anyone can be more clear or logical than you and what  you presented. Your follow-up picture is a nice touch too. Even a kindergartner would be able to understand that. It doesn't get more clearer than that.

The focus of this article will be on Agnosticism and Agnostics.

This Discussion is Open to Conservatives, Liberals, Agnostics, Atheists, QUESTIONING: WELCOME!

The focus of this article will be on Agnosticism and Agnostics.

Okay.   Let's start with a picture.   A third party picture.

Agnosticism is   indeed   dealing with what one   knows .   Theism deals with  religious belief   (belief in one or more gods).    

However, people commonly use the term 'agnostic' to refer to their religious views.   How can that be?   Well when 'agnostic' is applied to religious beliefs it is simply a vague shorthand for someone who is not certain that their religious beliefs are true.  This, I submit, is a rational, healthy position.

To better understand how the notion of knowledge and belief work together in a sensible fashion these concepts are explained in detail   here .   A summary:

Combining religious  belief  with  knowledge  yields four positions regarding religious belief:

• Gnostic Theist — 100% certain their deity(ies) exist; no other possibilities
• Agnostic Theist — believes in at least one deity yet acknowledges may be mistaken
• Agnostic Atheist — no belief in a deity but open to persuasive evidence to the contrary
• Gnostic Atheist — 100% certain no deity exists;  no other possibilities

There are plenty of ways to express this.   The first chart was simply pulled from the web (demonstrating that these ideas are indeed nothing new).   In fact it is easy to offer other charts (and supporting articles if one is so inclined):

For those who are not convinced that these are rather well established concepts (and labels).

You and I are done on this article. Please respect my wish to not address me directly again on this thread. I will respect you by doing likewise. 

You and I are done on this article. Please respect my wish to not address me directly again on this thread. I will respect you by doing likewise. 

TiG for the win: game, set, and match!

Kissing up?

Kissing up?

Just acknowledging a fact.

This information is all over the internet, on that I agree. Also, I am aware that atheist groups are writing opinion and research articles to suit their way of thinking, uploading them, and citing there own materials. I simply want to know what source is being used from time to time, not every time. The request is simple and should not be a matter of contention.

Besides, and I won't mind pointing it out from now on, freethinkers love to boast how they do not blindly follow authority, that they think for themselves, yada, yada, yada. The truth is plain to see free-thinkers do have authority figures, do use source materials similar to others - if not exactly the same ones, do attend seminars where they trade information and network, view videos made by others, read books by other atheist authorities, and form organizations and non-profits.  Just like other people. Nothing unique about it. 

And there is this, which lies behind my request.

In popular usage, an agnostic may just be someone who takes no position, pro or con, on the existence of gods, or who has not yet been able to decide, or who suspends judgment due to lack of evidence one way or the other (weak agnosticism).

This is the Agnostic position most Agnostics' are expressing, in my opinion. It certainly was mine for 18 years. The popular usage.

It isn't kissing up, it is simply an observation that you got your intellectual ass kicked. And I do not for one second believe that you, at any point, went through your life without leaning, however slightly to one side or the other when it comes to the existence of a deity. That is one thing I can be certain of. 

Now who is talking out of their "cheeks"? Well, you only have my word for what my life has been and is. Of course, you are welcome to come live out the rest of it for me—if you can.

I simply want to know what source is being used from time to time, not every time. The request is simple and should not be a matter of contention.

I believe TiG provided his sources in previous posts. So I'm not seeing the problem here.

The truth is plain to see free-thinkers do have authority figures, do use source materials similar to others -

The difference is, free thinkers disseminate and analyze the information for themselves, using logic and reasoning. 

This is the Agnostic position most Agnostics' are expressing, in my opinion.

Generally speaking, yes. However, TiG kindly broke it down even further.

If okay with you, I would like our discussions to be stand-alone.

Now then, informed people of Faith likewise analyze (Who? What? Why? How? What if? So what? So on and so forth) the information written in the Bible. Granted, Christians have a vested interest in their book materials, because it is either "handed down" from another or it is voluntarily entered into ("A Calling"). But do not delude yourself into thinking that our faith is a 'folly.' Many proofs are contained in the wisdom books, history, and spiritual qualities of the Bible! Even if only for the informed believer!

(As for those sects in Christianity that use force, shunning, and other forms of coercion tactics I can not speak to them, because I do not 'traffic' with those folks. Nor to some of this clear "silliness" that tends to stubbornly 'collect' to any structure or system as old as religion.) The leaders in the Christian Faith are schooled in critical thinking and the congregants who wish to be are informed. Even though, in some circles, I'd admit, it can be hard to tell the differences!

Moreover, critical thinkers are emotional creatures like the rest. You do well to think critically, but not all answers in this life or this world require strict 'clinical' analyses. Some answers/situations in our world are perfectly setup to being partial and/or matters of the heart.

Back to Agnosticism: There are two types:

1. God is unknown (and something can be known) - The weak form. (Limited.)
2. God is completely unknowable. - The strong form. (Unlimited.)

Christians fall under #1.

Thanks for sharing, Gordy!

If okay with you,

Thank you.

I would like our discussions to be stand-alone.

I won't hold anyone else to that condition.

But do not delude yourself into thinking that our faith is a 'folly.'

I wouldn't use the term "folly." More like irrational.

Many proofs are contained in the wisdom books, history, and spiritual qualities of the Bible! Even if only for the informed believer!

Subjective and anecdotal, not to mention circular logic. Proof is not subject to mere belief. Neither does belief equal proof.

The leaders in the Christian Faith are schooled in critical thinking and the congregants who wish to be are informed. Even though, in some circles, I'd admit, it can be hard to tell the differences!

The difference is, no matter how schooled or effective one is in critical thinking, religious minded individuals may reject actual information or facts if it conflicts with their beliefs. They still look through a religious lens and filter out what doesn't conform to their ideology or beliefs.

You do well to think critically,

I tend to agree. I would also include logically and rationally.

but not all answers in this life or this world require strict 'clinical' analyses. Some answers/situations in our world are perfectly setup to being partial and/or matters of the heart

"Matters of the heart" are more emotionally based or driven and highly subjective. They do not make for effective or logical solutions or answers.

Back to Agnosticism: There are two types:

I prefer TiG's explanations.

Christians fall under #1.

That's a sweeping generalization. It also goes under the assumption that there is a god to begin with. There is no logical reason to assume such a thing, especially with the absence of evidence.

I would like our discussions to be stand-alone.

You get my 'drift' (I hope) and I will leave it at that.

"Matters of the heart" are more emotionally based or driven and highly subjective. They do not make for effective or logical solutions or answers.

I do not say that matters of the heart are not emotional. After all, love by definition, involves emotion. Including love for God. In fact, love is the greatest scriptural command.

Love is all well and good. But it, like any emotion,  does nothing for critical thinking. 

Love is all well and good.

Yeaaaah Baaaaby!?

Critical thinking does little for love. However, faith is holistic! And, by virtue of it being faith, we discover much about ourselves through the practice of living out faith!

Faith is more akin to yoga or meditation. But if you need analysis or rationality, then critical thinking is the way to go. BTW, nice Austin Powers reference .

Faith (religious faith) is wishful thinking IMO.

I would consider prayer to be more wishful thinking. Faith is more of a mental comfort mechanism. 

The wishful thinking aspect I had in mind is all the good things that a religious belief promises:  such as everlasting life, a God who has our back, etc.   

Ultimately, who would believe on faith a negative scenario?    If a religion were formed that taught that we are all doomed  (no bright side) would there be any followers?   I think not.    That is why all successful religions offer a grand prize - an awesome reward for being a faithful follower.

And man does that work like a charm.

No one can deny critical thinking its power and placement in world of knowledge. Par excellence. However, can you elaborate on your comparison of faith to yoga and meditation?

I don't know. Some people tend to cast aside critical thinking in favor of their dogma, especially when challenged. 

Faith/prayer is to yoga or meditation in terms of physiological response. They can be a means of stress reduction. 

Thanks for clarifying. I agree with your analogy.

Before I address your comment (and train of thought), I wish to share a link to an article on faith that I recently prepared. It might help for my response on Tuesday (it's too late now). Here goes:

thenewstalkers

Since it is already prepared, it is only reasonable to offer it! Hopefully, you will go there and check it out. Note: I am referring to the article alone, the comments are "extra."

I wish to share a link to an article on faith that I recently prepared.

Thanks for that. Interesting article. But I'm not sure what your point is.

But I'm not sure what your point is.

I think it is an argument that faith (i.e. knowing God) is something that bypasses all fact and reason.   It is something that is 'experienced' and 'inexplicable'.

One can easily see how it bypasses fact and reason and certainly it defies explanation (I have yet to see this explained other than in the most vague ways).   Yet people do indeed claim 'experiences' that at times change lives.

I have my own hypothesis on what this is ...

Faith is not a stress reducer, although that could be a positive side-effect of being (religiously) faithful.

Faith in an individual is a lifestyle. A person living by faith considers their way of living based on a set standard. Skeptics may guffaw at that statement for obvious reasons! They will think that a person living out his or her faith gets life wrong often—more often—in some cases may be true. But, the standard -itself- is perpetual. It is what the faithful seek to understand (as it relates to their life challenges), and what each individual member strives toward—getting as close as each one can to the "center" of the standard.

The two men in the faith article changed, evidenced their changes by becoming ministers of faith to others. They entered a calling. A realm of faith. There, Captain Newton, formerly a slave owner served as church rector, prolific teacher/preacher and hymn writer until his death.  And, Mr. Foreman since 1976 has been a founder/minister of a Texas church for the duration. I, myself, dwell in the realm of faith for 25 years to date.

Your critical analysis of various sects dogma may have merit, but. It depends on what the rule is, its interpretation, and how it is functionally carried out by adherents. No one should defend
"shoddy" dogma any more than making a vain attempt to speak positively about poor workmanship! That being said, religious dogma is a subject for another expansive article.

I want to come back to this for a moment. Gordy, where does emotion (such as love) fit into your worldview? It sounds silly to ask - I get that. All the same, we have all heard the one about there being no stupid questions!

I think it is an argument that faith (i.e. knowing God) is something that bypasses all fact and reason.

That's a given.

I have my own hypothesis on what this is ...

I have a couple of my own as well.

Gordy, where does emotion (such as love) fit into your worldview?

In my interpersonal interactions or relationships.

Faith is not a stress reducer,

To clarify, certain faith based or religious actions, such as prayer, can be stress reducers. Faith itself can be an mental comfort mechanism.

The two men in the faith article changed, evidenced their changes by becoming ministers of faith to others. They entered a calling. A realm of faith. There, Captain Newton, formerly a slave owner served as church rector, prolific teacher/preacher and hymn writer until his death. And, Mr. Foreman since 1976 has been a founder/minister of a Texas church for the duration.

All that means is that a couple of guys converted to religion for their own reasons.

Your critical analysis of various sects dogma may have merit, but. It depends on what the rule is, its interpretation, and how it is functionally carried out by adherents.

People are generally free to follow, practice, or believe whatever dogma they wish. It can be criticized depending on how it's carried out. We see that today when dogma causes harm to people.

In my interpersonal interactions or relationships.

Faith itself can be an mental comfort mechanism.

All that means is that a couple of guys converted to religion for their own reasons.

Eureka! You are not an android or Artificial Intelligence! (Smile.)

More's the pity. 

So, it is clear to you that emotions are not "critically developed," no?

I never said they were. Emotions are far more basic.

Faith is not a "mental comfort mechanism." It is a lifestyle.

It can be both.

Faithful people literally live out or strive to live up to the standard of their specific faith. I can tell you this, because I dwell in the faith realm. It is not comfortable (in here) in every situation.

That's their and your choice.

These are serious men who live(d) life in similar ways as you choose to live your life today, then both men "translated" to become men, leaders of (great) faith. 1. The question is what caused them to change? 2. Why has the change held strong until death in Captain Newman and continues nonstop in George Foreman.

They had their reasons for choosing to embrace faith/religion. People do it every day. and many people also abandon faith/religion for whatever reason. It works both ways.

We moved the 'ball' forward a bit! Let me add this from, "The One About Faith."

Moreover, faith can be viewed as a kingdom or city dwelling place . Doing so, it becomes easier to understand how in living out their faith lives, some denizens build near or at faith’s borders and others bore in towards faith’s   center .  In everyday symbolism, it is existing on the edge of faith or, living well-established in it.  

I will stop here for a breather.

We moved the 'ball' forward a bit!

What do you mean?

Moreover, faith can be viewed as a kingdom or city dwelling place. Doing so, it becomes easier to understand how in living out their faith lives, some denizens build near or at faith’s borders and others bore in towards faith’s center. In everyday symbolism, it is existing on the edge of faith or, living well-established in it.

Not sure what your point is. Faith is faith. It's a personal choice or preference and can be based on emotional appeals or comforts. But is generally devoid of any facts nor is it the result (or substitution) of critical thinking and actual facts or evidence.

Faith is faith. It's a personal choice or preference and can be based on emotional appeals or comforts. But is generally devoid of any facts

How do you know this? You have experienced religious faith? If so, to what degree?

How do you know this?

What else could it be? Faith is something one learns and acquires, or uses for personal (often emotional) needs. One can choose to have faith or not. But it is not a source of facts or objective, critical/rational thinking. Facts is the result of critical thinking and empirical evidence. Not from emotional sources like faith or belief. You can use faith as a form of wishful thinking or even adopt its tenets as a lifestyle change. But ultimately, it does not offer any source of actual facts or evidence. 

You have experienced religious faith? 

No. 

Not from emotional sources like faith or belief.

One key here is to follow the trail that lead to the belief.   Inspect the evidence and the reasoning against the conclusion (the belief).   As you suggest, it is quite easy to predict that the evidence will be weak and the reasoning more wishful than logical.   But this is just a prediction.   Someone might be able to offer sound evidence and reasoning for believing the Word of the most supreme possible entity was properly captured in the translated and edited writings of ancient men with pens.   That reading the eventual English translations in the form of the Bible is actually reading truth from the most grand entity imaginable.

One can choose to have faith or not.

When "one" chooses to have (religious) faith - what happens next?

But it is not a source of facts or objective, critical/rational thinking.

You are certain that no facts can come from living day in and day out by a set of conditions (faith)?

Facts is the result of critical thinking and empirical evidence. Not from emotional sources like faith or belief.

No facts involved in emotional experiences like love, anger, sadness, grief, joy, and laughter (to name a few)? Faith is practical. It is something people do—more than theory.

You have experienced religious faith? No.

If you have limited practical evidence of faith, How can you be attest to it?

But this is just a prediction.

I'd wager it would be an accurate prediction.

Someone might be able to offer sound evidence and reasoning for believing the Word of the most supreme possible entity was properly captured in the translated and edited writings of ancient men with pens.

"Might" being the key word here. I have yet to hear of any sound evidence or reasoning, outside of subjective or anecdotal experience or like rationalization.

When "one" chooses to have (religious) faith - what happens next? Do you know, Gordy?

They have faith and they incorporate or practice their faith as they wish.

You are certain that no facts can come from living day in and day out by a set of conditions (faith)?

What "facts" would those be, that are based solely on the condition of faith? What conditions are you establishing exactly?

No facts involved in emotional experiences like love, anger, sadness, grief, joy, and laughter (to name a few)?

Nope! Those are just emotions or emotional reactions. What facts would be involved, other than what elicits those emotions?

Faith is practical.

That's a matter of opinion. As I said, it's "practical" as a mental/emotional comfort mechanism, much like other therapies or practices are. 

It is something people do—more than theory

Faith is something people believe or practice. That is their prerogative.

If you have limited practical evidence of faith, How can you be attest to it?

I can objectively observe and analyze those of faith.

Well, you did write you have no experience in religious faith. . . that would hardly enable you to be enlightened enough to be 'expert' or unshakable.

What facts would be involved, other than what elicits those emotions?

Emotions, let's stick with love. When you love somebody are you having an experience or an idea?

Faith is something people believe or practice. That is their prerogative.

Correct!

I can objectively observe and analyze those of faith.

True. The process will give you a theory or set of ideas. No experience, however.

Well, you did write you have no experience in religious faith. . . that would hardly enable you to be enlightened enough to be 'expert' or unshakable.

I never claimed to be an expert on religious faith. I essentially said faith is a subjective experience or matter and is not a supplement for evidence, critical thinking, or rationality. Faith is generally  used in the absence of those things. And what do you mean by "unshakeable?"

Emotions, let's stick with love. When you love somebody are you having an experience or an idea?

I'm having an electrochemical response in my brain, particularly in the amygdala, along with hormonal actions.

The process will give you a theory or set of ideas. No experience, however

Experience, especially religious experience, is subjective and anecdotal.

Ultimately, who would believe on faith a negative scenario?    If a religion were formed that taught that we are all doomed  (no bright side) would there be any followers?

I don't know about that given that the Abrahamic cults all teach that their sky wizard murders lots of folks (including farm animals) whenever an Egyptian pharaoh ignores his demands.    All three seem based in part on having a punitive and controlling sky wizard, presumably so that parents can control their kids with horror stories from this mythology.

I essentially said faith is a subjective experience or matter and is not a supplement for evidence, critical thinking, or rationality.

Faith is a holistic complement to critical thinking and rationality. And, life is not a simple academic exercise. There are other schools of thought. Faith being one such tradition which brings with it life-long experiences.

Faith is generally used in the absence of those things.

In conjunction, with critical thinking and reason, in informed Christians.

And what do you mean by "unshakeable?"

Your stance is malleable, as any stance can be, once new info is introduced.

"Might" being the key word here. I have yet to hear of any sound evidence or reasoning, outside of subjective or anecdotal experience or like rationalization.

Same here.

But it is all part of the great promise of everlasting (pleasant) life.   Death is turned from the worst fear of most into something that will result in extraordinary benefits.   

I was referring to a religion that was net negative.   The most effective religions do have a negative aspect (to scare people into staying faithful) but the major draw -the thing that secures the new members- is positive.

I'm having an electrochemical response in my brain, particularly in the amygdala, along with hormonal actions.

An experience of bliss, likely in the holistic part of the amygdala.

Experience, especially religious experience, is subjective and anecdotal.

Correct! There is not a prescribed 'dosage.' If that is even what you mean.

Hi Skrekk! We have a topic here on Agnosticism and the Freedom from Religion Foundation, which has extended itself to faith. Can you assist me in sticking to the topics of Agnosticism, FFRF, and  faith. There is plenty here to chew on already! Thank you.

Faith is a holistic complement to critical thinking and rationality.

Nope. Faith is the exact opposite of critical thinking.

And, life is not a simple academic exercise. There are other schools of thought. Faith being one such tradition which brings with it life-long experiences.

That's nice. But it is not a source of critical thinking or facts/evidence.

In conjunction, with critical thinking and reason, in informed Christians.

Nope, in place of.

Your stance is malleable, as any stance can be, once new info is introduced.

Sure, when there is objective, empirical evidence.

An experience of bliss, likely in the holistic part of the amygdala.

There is  no "holistic" part of the amygdala. Bliss is just an emotional response and/or release of endorphins by the brain.

Correct! There is not a prescribed 'dosage.' If that is even what you mean

That is not what I mean. I mean religious experience is subjective. 

There is  no "holistic" part of the amygdala. Bliss is just an emotional response and/or release of endorphins by the brain.

I am referring to the "holistic" non-dominant hemisphere of the brain (right side) and its corresponding right amygdala.

I never claimed to be an expert on religious faith.

Right. I get that loud and clear.

I am referring to the "holistic" non-dominant hemisphere of the brain (right side) and its corresponding right amygdala.

The amygdala is part of the limbic system of the brain, near the base of the brain under the temporal lobes. There is no "dominant" amygdala. Simply put, the right amygdala causes a fear response. The left amygdala causes happy responses. So you need to define what you mean by "holistic."

Right. I get that loud and clear.

I'm glad that's clear. But it doesn't change anything I said.

Gordy! We're good here. We do not need to press this thing into the mat.

Gordy! We're good here. We do not need to press this thing into the mat.

As you wish. I simply addressed all your points.

As I did yours. Maybe more later today. . . running away right now. . . .

As I did yours.

But your position is untenable. You are trying to argue matters of logic or reasoning from a position of emotion. They are not on the same playing field.

More like you are attempting to argue faith with a lack of expertise or experience! I have 25 years (silver anniversary) of experiences, plural, living what you term "untenable."  I digress. This topic is Agnosticism. Can we return to it?

More like you are attempting to argue faith with a lack of expertise or experience!

That's because I argue from a position of logic and reasoning.

I have 25 years (silver anniversary) of experiences, plural, living what you term "untenable." I digress.

That's nice, and congratulations. But as I said, such experiences are subjective and anecdotal. That is not a sound position to argue objectively, logically, or rationally, much less as a basis for establishing facts.

This topic is Agnosticism. Can we return to it?

By all means. Although, I'm not sure what's left to discuss. It seems to have been covered quite thoroughly already.

informed people of Faith likewise analyze (Who? What? Why? How? What if? So what? So on and so forth) the information written in the Bible. Granted, Christians have a vested interest in their book materials, because it is either "handed down" from another or it is voluntarily entered into ("A Calling"). But do not delude yourself into thinking that our faith is a 'folly.'

I'm a little late joining this discussion, but this stood out to me, specifically the admission of a "vested interest".

Christians are most often raised in the faith by parents and peers who present the whole of the story in two basic ways early on. These are, if you do good you get a reward, if you do bad you get punished. Christianity is essentially presented to children like they won the lottery, they get to know about a reward bigger and better than anything this life will ever have to offer them. So as that child grows up they are taught to ignore things that would reduce their faith in that promised lottery payment, while also being taught to embellish things they believe happened because of their faith, the mini rewards most people like to blame on prayers or their Gods power, and they see these as proof of the promised lottery payment they get when they die.

This means they are heavily invested in continuing to pay the scratcher price each Sunday by dropping cash in on the plate, because if they stop paying, they feel like they would lose all that imagined investment. This is called the "sunk cost fallacy" in which future costs may be incurred or changed if an action is taken. In that regard, both retrospective and prospective costs could be either fixed costs (continuous for as long as the person has been investing in their faith) or variable costs (dependent on new reasons they must rely on their faith i.e illness, injury, death in the family etc.). These people often fear losing their retrospective costs they've sunk if they admit or accept anything that reduces their faith, that challenges their faiths veracity. Like a gambler not wanting to get up from their slot machine for fear someone is going to sit down and hit the jackpot, the faithful continue dumping in their nickels and quarters because they have already made a huge investment so don't want to risk losing out on the possible jackpot they've been promised.

This is why many feel it's pointless to even debate with the faithful, because the debate is never in good faith. It's never starting at an equal point where both sides are willing to accept an unbiased outcome. The side of faith is always trying to steer the outcome in their favor, like cheating hands on a Ouija board that always push towards the message they want spelled out, because they don't want their faith damaged. They don't want their investment proven to be pointless. Sure, they have no problem pointing at people of other faiths and claiming their faith is false and pointless, ridiculing Islam, Hindu or any other faith besides their own, but they'll rarely accept any points made against their own faith because that again makes them feel as if they're risking losing that jackpot they've been waiting for.

So you need to define what you mean by "holistic."

Sorry, if I overlooked this one or it just now rose to the occasion for me. After reading it, I feel you misunderstood what I mean by "vested interest." Of course, Christians have a vested interest (personal involvement) in the Bible, because the Bible, specifically the New Testament is written to a select group of people who wish to follow its guidelines and directives. Labeling oneself a Christians intentionally and deliberately puts a person (or is supposed to) on a narrow(er) path charted through life. The adherents is literally stating, "I will do so and so" in accordance with the tenets of this faith.

I could write more, but I suffer from a lack of coffee. Need some now! (Smile.) Hope you continue your point. By the way, I will relook at your lottery analogy again. For now it went right over my head. Peace.

Again, define "holistic." In a simplistic nutshell, the left brain is for concrete, logical thinking. The right brain is for abstract thinking.

Labeling oneself a Christians intentionally and deliberately puts a person (or is supposed to) on a narrow(er) path

One who does so is no longer a seeker truth, but seeking to stay on the path they've chosen. And that's their prerogative, but they should stop trying to claim they are truth seekers. If they were seeking the truth, they would be challenging the path before them putting it to the test, looking for any possible way it could be proven wrong, just like scientific theories do. Science comes up with a theory based on many tests and observations then publishes their conclusions hoping for other scientists to challenge the findings. It doesn't matter how much the scientist credited with the theory wants it to be true, if the theory is found to have holes in it, it gets rejected by the scientific community, no matter how long the theory had been accepted.

That is not how religious theory works however. Religious theory is vehemently defended with proponents trying to find any and all ways to reinforce their beliefs especially if it's been believed a long time. Those who have put faith in the belief don't want it proven wrong because if they allow it to be debunked they experience the feeling of sunk cost. The prayers, the effort, the time they have spent supporting that belief make them feel if they leave the faith slot machine now they're going to lose out on their investment which keeps them coming back and defending it regardless of the facts supporting it.

1. 'Ask' of the people who do the research.

2.  You do not know the definition of the word, "holistic"?

Please do not drag this out like molasses pouring. I assume you understand what neuroscience is 'saying' about the brain (and a correlation to the location of the right amygdala) without being tedious.

Ask' of the people who do the research.

I'm asking you.

You do not know the definition of the word, "holistic"?

There are multiple definitions.

Please do not drag this out like molasses pouring. I assume you understand what neuroscience is 'saying' about the brain (and a correlation to the location of the right amygdala) without being tedious.

You're the one who brought it up, not me. So if you're not willing to explain your position or answer a simple question, then your point becomes moot!

Dismayed Patriot, that is the problem for your analysis.

1. People who Christians, people of other faiths, similar to people who are irreligious, accept a specific set of 'values' or standards to hold to the respective definitions. Thus, I will not engage with you on an abstract of who is a "truer" seeker of truth.

2. Faith in God is not a natural phenomena. You will not find an objective expression of faith which yields uniform results to all its practitioners. Basically, uniformity is what the scientific method is after. 

3. You wrote:

That is not how religious theory works however. Religious theory is vehemently defended with proponents trying to find any and all ways to reinforce their beliefs especially if it's been believed a long time. Those who have put faith in the belief don't want it proven wrong because if they allow it to be debunked they experience the feeling of sunk cost. The prayers, the effort, the time they have spent supporting that belief make them feel if they leave the faith slot machine now they're going to lose out on their investment which keeps them coming back and defending it regardless of the facts supporting it.

For a "minute" I was considering a fast reply to this. However, I will take my time to develop it. So, watch this space.

Well, I am not going to dignify handing you a dictionary. I suggest you view the article in holistic fashion. Example: Stand back, see the forest which contains the trees.

funderstanding

The images are self-explanatory: Both add meaning to the discussion we share in.

One more thing on this topic of faith, Dismayed Patriot: I have an article on faith at this address: thenewstalkers it may help to lend some explanation to my my forthcoming answer. You are welcome to discuss faith (with me and others) on that article! It might save me some time and repetitive effort.

That said, I fully intend to reply to your specific question here as well. I could just as easy deposit my answer in both locations. (Smile.)

Well, I am not going to dignify handing you a dictionary.

First you bring it up. Now you're backing out!

Faith in God is not a natural phenomena. You will not find an objective expression of faith which yields uniform results to all its practitioners. Basically, uniformity is what the scientific method is after.

I do not believe there can be multiple truths, so I do seek uniformity, or rather specificity of how we actually came to be and where we are going, if anywhere, after we die. I do not believe the universe we exist in is one of multiple choice, where some go to heaven, some go to hell, some go to Nirvana and others go to Valhalla.

Let's take the example of Pascals wager. When seen in simplicity it appears to be two choices, either you get the promised reward of heaven which makes having faith in it and following biblical moral codes worth it, or there is no reward, when you die there is nothing else. If that were the reality of the universe, just two possible outcomes, it would make sense for someone who has invested in their faith all their lives to keep believing, because belief in the reward seems more fulfilling than belief with no reward. But the reality is that there are endless numbers of faiths with an endless number of ways you're supposed to live in order to gain the reward. Maybe Zeus is the true God and those who don't worship him have no hope for an afterlife. Perhaps it's Odin, or Vishnu or even the FSM.

That's how my analogy of a gambler connects. People of faith are gambling that their faith is the correct one and has a possible reward as long as they keep playing. The sunk cost fallacy makes them feel like if they stop investing in their faith, they'll lose all the time and effort they've spent up to that point even though the odds of their faith being the right one is the same as any other faith being the right one.

So let's walk this thought process through. Let's assume you're a Christian and have been since childhood but now after decades of professing to be Christian you get approached by a Muslim who says "No, this is how you must live if you want a great reward after death.". Most Christians are most likely to reject the Muslims advances and push back saying "No, living the way I have lived and believing in Christ is the only way to salvation!". But is that a response built on one faith having more evidence or is it the sunk cost fallacy making the decision? If you had just become a Christian the day before you speak to the Muslim, you're much more likely to question your new faith and have a side by side comparison of the two and see which has more substantial proof supporting it.

Since the reality is there is the exact same amount of empirical evidence to support Islam as there is to support Christianity, or any other faith on the planet, they all have the same likelihood of being accurate. That means anyone defending their faith against others is doing so out of personal investment, not verifiable evidence supporting one over another. This is why most people retain the faith of their childhood, so if you're born in India, you're likely Hindu or possibly Muslim, and if you're born in America you have a high probability of considering yourself Christian. It has nothing to do with facts or evidence, just simple random luck on what geographical location you were born that determines ones faith.

The same cannot be said of atheism. There is no investment one has to make, to live in one specified manner in order to gain some hoped for reward. Most atheists were raised in a specific faith but most often have been the ones who chose not to give in to the sunk cost fallacy and felt it was worth challenging their own faith, testing their faiths veracity regardless of whether the answers they find might put their imagined reward in jeopardy. I invite any and all persons of faith to present any evidence that truly challenges my current understanding of the universe, but so far none have presented even a shred of verifiable evidence to support their version of truth. I'd be more than happy to believe in the rewards faith promises if they had any evidence of their existence, but I now refuse to be pulled around by the nose by organized religion without any substance to their claims just because I'd spent the first 40 years of my life being a devout Christian, the sunk cost I spent didn't in any way make my past faith more reliable or true than any other.

I'd be more than happy to believe in the rewards faith promises if they had any evidence of their existence, but I now refuse to be pulled around by the nose by organized religion without any substance to their claims just because I'd spent the first 40 years of my life being a devout Christian, the sunk cost I spent didn't in any way make my past faith more reliable or true than any other.

Let's clarify. You were a "devout" Christian for 40 years? If so, you should have no problem explaining to me what these "faith promises" rewards are you walked away from or turned down. I am not jesting with you on this. You wrote you manifested faith (in God) for an extreme number of years, thus something had to occur to cause you to get off the path. Mind sharing what? (The question and its answer are relevant to this "sunk cost" theory of yours.

I am not backing out. Mystified. That, this single word (holistic) is taking us this much space for you.

You were a "devout" Christian for 40 years?

Yes, I was as well as being a pastor for over a decade and I've read the bible cover to cover at least three times in my life. The "faith promises rewards" I "walked away from or turned down" were of course the promise of spending an eternity of bliss in the presence of the creator after having my "sin" washed away in the blood of Christ, the sacrificial lamb paying the ransom for Adams sin that all humans supposedly inherited. I am giving up the safety of the house that has been blessed with the blood of the first born lamb representing the blood of Christ so that the angel of death may "Passover" and not take my or my children's lives. But like I said, my sunk cost of long term belief and devotion makes that narrative no more true than any other promised reward such as 70 virgins or a seat next to Odin in Valhalla. As for the "something had to occur to cause you to get off the path. Mind sharing what?", I have always been an avid reader and continually studied my Christian faith, but the more I studied it, the more questions I had. The answers I received from my peers and other pastors was to not worry about the inconsistencies and to focus on the reward. If my faith was weak, they told me to just "fake it till you make it" saying that just going through the motions would eventually build the faith I found myself lacking. I also often heard that "God works in mysterious ways" to explain things that they couldn't answer. It was my search for truth that led me to read other books claiming divine origin, like the bhagavad gita and the Koran, and while very interesting, provided no more verifiable evidence of any God than did the bible.

So the real answer to your question of what took me off my path is that I never left my path, I have always been seeking truth and the evidence to verify it. I just found the path of Christianity as well as that of several other faith to lead to the very same dead end where you are forced to just survive on the sunk cost, to believe just because you've been believing and stopping now would seem as if you came all this way for nothing.

I would love for the fantasy promises of most faiths to be true, but just because they offer such rich rewards does not in fact make them good investments if they are unable to provide even a shred of empirical evidence of their veracity.

Looks like there is no way your simple clarification request will be honored.   

Given the last graphic it appears Calbab posits holistic thinking (system as a whole rather than as aggregate of components) as an alternate and legitimate way of thinking.  And, by extension, that holistic derived conclusions are just as valid as those derived by rational methods (e.g. the scientific method).   Thus, by extension again, conclusions drawn from religious beliefs are just as much knowledge as the findings of empirical science.

Admittedly, I am reading a lot into the word 'holistic' and the subtle association of rational : holistic in his graph, but that probably is what he means.   

Not sure why this is such a problem to clarify, but that is my educated guess.   Probably what you are thinking too, so at this point maybe just presume?  Not your fault if you presume wrong.

To me, the word "holistic" has had so many definitions and connotations associated with it as to make it almost meaningless.

It is a bit abstract.

I just found the path of Christianity as well as that of several other faith to lead to the very same dead end where you are forced to just survive on the sunk cost, to believe just because you've been believing and stopping now would seem as if you came all this way for nothing.

How assuming of you. What makes you think being an Atheist, if that what you are, is going to be your 'end.'?

For the record, I have read in-depth to some other faith systems and their books. And, while being impressed with the well-thought spirituality of the Bhagavad Gita, I confess Jesus Christ as faith of choice. I leave eternal salvation and eternal judgement up to God, nevertheless.

Now then, do I believe in a Higher Power, A God, God? Yes, I do. Do I accept that Jesus is the manifested Son of God. Yes, I do. Do I believe that Jesus appointed some to be apostles in the Earth to carry a message of salvation, peace, and faith in God in the Earth? Yes, I do.

I was raised in a baptist tradition as a child. I left that tradition, the Church, and religion completely for 18 solid years, and returned to a different Christian tradition in the 19th year of my absence. Since then, having moved away from that local church, I opted to not "enroll" in another religious tradition. I have taken my faith "tradition" into my own hands and I literally sat under no one teacher. I self-study from multiple teachers.

What have I discovered?

Ironically, trusting Spirit to guide me to truth has a surprising benefit: Standing "afar off" and gazing at churches and Christian broadcasters, has afforded me plenty opportunities to see gaps in knowledge, spiritual excesses, and teaching and preaching errors in many church leaders. It has shown me many quality preachers and spiritual teachers, also. These 'findings' could have been missed or looked over had i remained a 'local' congregant willing to settle for social benefits and regular 'fare.' 

Understanding of why I believe is of utmost importance to me. I have been and continue to suffer spiritual discipline in order to be a thinking believer. Yet, I am not someone sitting around in sackcloth and ash or in need of pity. Therefore, I resist your rush to judgement about what constitutes my faith.

It is highly probably different from your own journey.

I just asked a simple question. You're the one dragging this on by not answering. I'm curious as to why you won't. 

TiG, I trust your educated guesses more than most peoples facts.

I have that going for me!  

It is highly probably different from your own journey.

We all have our own journeys, though the set of facts we have to examine remains the same. So far, in all of recorded history, we have no empirical evidence of anything supernatural or divine. Every religions worshipers believe their prayers are answered at almost the exact same rate which is almost identical to the rate at which placebos work. This leads me to believe that either they all share the same divine inspiration or the same lack of divine inspiration, the latter being more plausible. You can take a spiritual journey and end up wherever you choose, it's more about you and your own journey than it is about following the correct path out of thousands. 

This means they are heavily invested in continuing to pay the scratcher price each Sunday by [1] dropping cash in on the plate, because if they stop paying, they feel like they would lose all that imagined investment. This is called the [2] "sunk cost fallacy" in which future costs may be incurred or changed if an action is taken. In that regard, both retrospective and prospective costs could be either fixed costs (continuous for as long as the person has been investing in their faith) or variable costs (dependent on new reasons they must rely on their faith i.e illness, injury, death in the family etc.). These people often fear losing their retrospective costs they've sunk [3 ] if they admit or accept anything that reduces their faith, that challenges their faiths veracity. Like a gambler not wanting to get up from their slot machine for fear someone is going to sit down and hit the jackpot, the faithful continue dumping in their nickels and quarters because they have already made a huge investment so don't want to risk losing out on the possible jackpot they've been promised.

1. The New Testament teaches once saved always saved . So what is this loss fallacy you mention have to do with faith?

John 10: 27 My sheep listen to My voice; I know them, and they follow Me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one can snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father who has given them to Me is greater than all. No one can snatch them out of My Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”

2.  We are not saved by works. So what is this ' purchase plan ' you mention to do with faith?

Ephesians 2: ⁸  For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; ⁹  not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

3.  We ask and we receive spiritual truths, according to the Spirit of Truth. Spiritual truth is sufficient and needful to a spiritual man or woman. So what is this 'truth' that has the power to separate the faithful from the love of God?

John 6: ⁶³   It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. ⁶⁴  But there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who would betray Him. ⁶⁵  And He said, “Therefore I have said to you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted to him by My Father.” ⁶⁶  From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more.

So far, in all of recorded history, we have no empirical evidence of anything supernatural or divine.

What is the natural world? It is what we experience with our senses and machines, no? When has science ever told you that its quest for truth is complete? I discuss with you spiritual experience which occurs in the minds of people such that their entire life 'profile' erupts with change. These people evidence that they are not the same. Why discount their realities?

... which occurs in the minds of people ...

(hint)

Why discount their realities?

Lack of evidence.  Logical contradictions.

Calbab, most people would love to have a second chance - for death to not be final, etc..    There are some who believe the promises of religions based on ... nothing ... other than a happy promise and others who simply cannot blindly accept that which is not supported by evidence or logic.   Why is this so difficult to understand?

What is the natural world? It is what we experience with our senses and machines, no?

Not quite. The natural world is just the reality and natural phenomenon of the world around us and the universe. Our senses, and by extension our technology, allow us to observe the natural world around us in a concrete way. 

 When has science ever told you that its quest for truth is complete? 

Science is the quest for fact. If you want "truth," take a philosophy course.

I discuss with you spiritual experience which occurs in the minds of people such that their entire life 'profile' erupts with change.

Key phrase there: "in the minds of people." That takes on a more abstract notion, which is subjective.

These people evidence that they are not the same. Why discount their realities?

Because of the lack of evidence or proof. The fact that they have different "realities" only shows that it is subjective and anecdotal.

It is a bit abstract.

I guess that's why it is on the rights side of the brain, as the right side deals with more abstract concepts.

We are not saved by works. So what is this 'purchase plan' you mention to do with faith?

^"14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? ¹⁵ If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, ¹⁶ and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? ¹⁷ So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." James 2:14-17

"The New Testament teaches once saved always saved. So what is this loss fallacy you mention have to do with faith?"

That is a doctrine not shared by all Christians or faiths. If it were that easy, you might as well profess belief in all religions at some point in your life to cover all your bets believing you can just move on now that you got saved once by each faith.

"We ask and we receive spiritual truths, according to the Spirit of Truth. Spiritual truth is sufficient and needful to a spiritual man or woman. So what is this 'truth' that has the power to separate the faithful from the love of God?"

Yet those of every religion profess to have received "spiritual truth", yet most faiths contradict each other which means they can't all be true. And the truth that has the power to separate the faithful from the love of God doesn't exist. There is no evidence I have that says your dead ancestors aren't watching you and caring about you even now, so you can believe they are watching and loving you, and if that makes you feel better inside, then go for it. The same with anyone's God, if you want to imagine them loving you from afar, then so be it, no truth I can present can prove they are not. I just happen to believe that people can make themselves feel good by believing things that aren't true and it gives them just as much reward here and now as belief in what some claim is the only truth and path to righteousness.

Let's take the placebo example again. If you have a test group where half are given actual medicine and the other half a sugar pill, is there any difference between the guy who was helped by the medicine or the guy who believed he was helped but was actually on the placebo if they both get the same outcome? Not to the test subjects. Sure, depending on the success or failure rate it could have a huge impact on the actual drugs viability, but at the moment no faith has any better provable outcomes than any other faith, or for that matter no faith at all.

... at the moment no faith has any better provable outcomes than any other faith, or for that matter no faith at all.

Which is at the heart of the question:  'how can one believe this?'.    Belief in an abstract sentient creator is (psychologically) understandable.   If left at that, with no other properties, the belief is very close to the evidence.   But the many gods we have come up with, especially the God of the Bible, are typically replete with attributes (e.g. omniscience, disappointment) and stories / adventures.  The more details human beings use to dress up their gods the easier it is to logically and factually dismiss the god as defined.

To wit, nobody knows if God exists - we can only speculate.   Speculating then on what we know -nothing- ... the least presumptuous agnostic definition for God (while still qualifying as God) would IMO be 'sentient creator'.   Nothing more.  Entirely vague.  No promises, rules, objectives, stories, etc.   Accordingly, the agnostic theist would believe a sentient creator more likely than not while the agnostic atheist would find belief in even a sentient creator to be unjustified.

Trolling? There is not much critical thinking in that! Moving on.

if you want to imagine [God] loving you from afar, then so be it, no truth I can present can prove they are not. I just happen to believe that people can make themselves feel good by believing things that aren't true and it gives them just as much reward here and now as belief in what some claim is the only truth and path to righteousness.

"No truth I can present can prove they are not."  What? Dismayed Patriot, faith is a placebo, now? How are you going to prove that?

^"14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? ¹⁵ If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, ¹⁶ and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? ¹⁷ So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." James 2:14-17

Works (actions) do come about as a consequence of Faith. Absolutely nothing wrong with that! Works can not save.

Trolling?

Not at all. What makes you think that? I simply addressed your points. How is that trolling exactly?

faith is a placebo, now? How are you going to prove that?

I didn't say I could prove faith is a placebo, I merely stated that the evidence shows all faiths have the same rate of success if measured by the practitioners of many different faiths. Let's say faith in Christianity is the "real drug" being used in the trial and the placebos being given to half of the participants are Hinduism and Buddhism. In the double blind study they all practice their faiths, pray, believe, and can attribute daily blessings to their faith at the same rate as the Christian faith "real drug". Would that "real drug" be given FDA approval if it couldn't outperform the placebos?

There are members of every religion who swear by their faith and believe their faith is what brings them happiness and joy and a spiritual connection to their God. There is no faith that stands head and shoulders above the rest with much higher accounts of prayer fulfillment or other divine intervention in human lives as would be expected of the "true" faith. So either all faiths lead to the same divinity or they all lead to the same lack of divinity. I'm of the opinion it's the latter, none have any actual divine inspiration. But all do scratch the same itch many humans have for wanting to feel comfortable and wise with an explanation for our existence, to feel warm and safe in the concept of a universal purpose, that their actions matter.

Nearly every religion describes some supernatural being that apparently is so powerful it created the universe itself, but spends every second watching us, worrying about us believing in them, getting angry when we don't do what they want or worship them in the way they desire. The God of the bible is apparently extremely jealous as the first four of the ten commandments point out. "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me! Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image for you could never capture my radiance! Thou shalt not take my name in vain! Remember my day off and keep it holy!"

So no, I can't prove faith is a placebo, but all the evidence certainly points that way.

I didn't say I could prove faith is a placebo.

"I didn't say I could prove faith is a placebo." Yet, it begs the question that you keep returning to putting faith through the scientific method test.  Note: We are discussing Agnosticism and the Freedom From Religion Foundation in this article, and apparently faith and spirituality. Not the scientific method, nevertheless.

As far as "all Faiths" and Irreligion being equally potent or equally impotent in this natural realm, then I guess we should be safe to choose whicheever we like, no? According to you, the faithful and the faithless bear up the same!

then I guess we should be safe to choose whicheever we like, no?

Yes. Everyone should be free to choose to believe or not. But there is a line that religion shouldn't cross no matter how strongly you believe, and that is into the secular realm of others rights to believe as they wish. Much like when we're born, the default position is no belief in spirits, Gods, or anything supernatural as those are concepts that have to be taught. Secular society only functions properly by sticking to that position. The religious claim this is injecting atheism into our secular world, but it's not, much like not collecting stamps isn't a hobby. Secular society that functions based on the premise that none of the religions proposed are correct is able to do its job of creating a stable community with rules and laws based on the welfare of the citizenry without having to debate which God approves of what laws.

Everyone should be free to choose to believe or not. But there is a line that religion shouldn't cross no matter how strongly you believe, and that is into the secular realm of others rights to believe as they wish.

While people are free to believe or not, religion tries to tip the scales with threats of damnation if one does not believe. 

Yes. Everyone should be free to choose to believe or not. But there is a line that religion shouldn't cross no matter how strongly you believe, and that is into the secular realm of others rights to believe as they wish. Much like when we're born, the default position is no belief in spirits, Gods, or anything supernatural as those are concepts that have to be taught.

1. In this country, USA, we are generally and mostly free to believe or not. For example, above I explained I so-called, "believed" as a child, then suspended judgment as a young adult, and returned at a later date—no one blocked my transitions or challenged my choices. So I agree with you the various "worlds" should co-exist peacefully—together.

2. A baby comes into the world to all appearances a "clean slate" - be it to religious or irreligious pedigrees. Everything from the first impressions of this world through death out of this world is an effect. Therefore, innocence is the default position of a child born into this world. Secularism is not a default position at birth, the "thing" is taught!

A baby comes into the world to all appearances a "clean slate" - be it to religious or irreligious pedigrees. Everything from the first impressions of this world through death out of this world is an effect. Therefore, innocence is the default position of a child born into this world. Secularism is not a default position at birth, the "thing" is taught!

Does a baby hold a belief in a God?   If not then the baby is an agnostic atheist.    

Secularism is certainly not the default position, I agree, but a lack of belief in something called 'God' certainly seems to be.  Early belief in God seems to be a function of nurture.   A Christian born in the USA might have been a Muslim if born in Afghanistan, a Hindu if born in India or a Buddhist if born in China.   The evidence suggests that theism is taught and the particular true God is usually that of the parents.

Therefore, innocence is the default position of a child born into this world. Secularism is not a default position at birth, the "thing" is taught!

According to your bible "sin" is the default position of a child born into this world which is why it demands you accept the ransom sacrifice Christ made on our behalf. But my point was that while a child might have to learn social interaction, often taught between siblings and/or in preschool or kindergarten. Religion is a whole other set of rules and beliefs that have to be taught on top of basic social interaction. Children are not taught not to believe in God, though most religious fanatics claim otherwise because they see anyone telling a child it's up to them to decide if there is a God or not as heresy.

Much like when we're born, t he default position is no belief in spirits, Gods, or anything supernatural as those are concepts that have to be taught.

Y our focus, "when we're born," leads to a positive statement of newborn innocence. (As you clearly point out spirituality (thoughts, understanding, and explanation of sin) has not materialized.) There is no mention or determination of sin called for.

Children are not taught not to believe in God

Are you sure secularists do not teach their children not to believe in God?

secularism

no one blocked my transitions or challenged my choices.

I'm going to assume you were raised in church, so your choices would have been very much influenced by your upbringing.

I'm going to assume you were raised in church, so your choices would have been very much influenced by your upbringing.

Friend Sandy, my choices were very much influenced by same-sex sexual dynamics and 'coming of age.' And yes, making a decision to walk away from family-church/life was a devastating decision, but pretense and hypocrisy have never been what I am about! I left church and religion behind. It's called, "going out into the world."

What I meant was that your upbringing influenced your religious beliefs before you left church, and it was to that upbringing and the religion it included, even if in modified form, that you returned.

I abandoned my early upbringing.

What I meant was that your upbringing influenced your religious beliefs before you left church, and it was to that upbringing and the religion it included, even if in modified form, that you returned.

Of course, and no. I left Church (never to step foot back into one) after it became clear that I essentially had to seek my own path in life. Already, I'd been drifting away from Church since discovery of my sexuality. It was all becoming a bit of a (mental) mess. Certainly, there was no Church in America -at that time or at least known to me- messaging or doing outreach to homosexual youth/adults. Indeed, churches were hiding from the problem or outright vocal against the concept!

I submitted myself to baptism  at eight years old. It was my decision along with my brother - as we were in church meeting that particular day together. We, I, told my parents what I had done once I got home. I add this detail because I want you to get the real impression of it was all me making decisions even from such a young age.

Friend Sandy, every activity we interact with is an "ingredient" in our makeup. Yes, I knew bible stories and had baptist traditions and principles instilled in me. One of the purposes of church is to "train up a child." Every set of adults do some form of "home-training" to and for their children—even secular homes. That is, if you do not want to turn "brutes" loose on society! We are all creatures of our upbringings to varying degrees. It is as if to say that a secular-reared child departs home into the Christian world or some other spiritual domain and later returns to his/her foundation.

One last thing. When I left my church, I had no knowledge if I would ever make it back. I simply had to go and find out for myself.

thenewstalkers

Friend Sandy, on "The One About Faith" I state what was causing personal turmoil in my mind and soul, thus compelling me to seek a new outcome. Can you find it and comment on it over there ? If you wish, that is. I want to keep these two threads somewhat distinct. This article is partially about Agnosticism and Freedom From Religion Foundation.

All along I was suggesting the Google search that delivers this.   I was hoping to make the point and move on without having to literally deliver proof.

So basically, Gordy, I submit it is not helpful to simply self-label as agnostic in the context of religious views.   What does that even mean ... totally undecided?   Nobody is totally undecided.   So it makes sense to break this down into meaningful categories (which can in turn be further subdivided if need be).

Agnostic theist is very different from agnostic atheist.   Both, I submit, are rational positions (although I could argue the agnostic atheist position far better than the agnostic theist position).   It is the gnostics who are in logical trouble.   They are screwed at the offset since they make claims that cannot possibly be made by a non-omniscient entity.

BTW, do you agree that the super-super-majority of atheists (9x%) are agnostic-atheists?   Do we even know any gnostic atheists?

Both, I submit, are rational positions (although I could argue the agnostic atheist position far better than the agnostic theist position).

I tend to agree.

do you agree that the super-super-majority of atheists (9x%) are agnostic-atheists? 

Agreed.

 Do we even know any gnostic atheists?

Not that I know of off hand.

Do we even know any gnostic atheists?

I occasionally see one, from time to time, on message boards like this, but it is a rare sighting. Like spotting a snow leopard in the wild, and the sightings are often just as short. Off the top of my head I cannot name a single gnostic atheist. 

Do we even know any gnostic atheists?

For me, it depends on how "god" is defined.

If it is according to Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Greek, Roman, Norse, etc. type gods, then I am an gnostic atheist along with everyone else who absolutely dismisses the existence of gods that they are 100% certain do not exist.

If "god" is existence, then I am a gnostic theist because I know that I exist according to the dictionary definition of existence.

"God" requires a clear definition in order to answer whether a person believes that it exists or is possible for it to exist. 

I will claim Gnostic Atheist in reference to all man made gods, religions or descriptions of what a god is, anything short of total rejection of the idiocy is logically weak.

We don't know how all this was created and we may never know, and it doesn't matter.

I can appreciate gnostic atheism relative to specific god definitions.   In fact I mentioned this earlier (somewhere ...).   Essentially one can disprove the existence of a definition of a god if one can show that the definition of the god is contradictory.   Here is the prime example:

Yahweh is defined as omniscient and omnipotent yet He is surprised that Adam & Eve disobeyed Him.   An omniscient being would KNOW that they would disobey Him.  On top of that, the omniscient entity made these creatures and, being omnipotent, could have created them so that they would not disobey.   Yahweh being surprised is a logical contradiction.   Yahweh, per that definition, cannot exist because it is a contradiction.

Another example:   Yahweh is supposed to grant human beings free will.   But if Yahweh knows what a being will do then the being by definition does not have free will.   Free will means being free to actually vary from a predestined path.   Yahweh cannot be omniscient AND grant free will.

Now, you claimed gnostic atheism relative to particular gods.   But gnostic atheism in general means certainty that no god exists (by any definition).   So here is my question.   I will define a god and you tell me if you are 100% certain that this god could not exist.

God = sentient creator of the known universe  (period.  no other attributes.  no stories.  no presumed love.  no presumed afterlife.  no anthropomorphic bearded father figure.  no angels.  no Jesus.  nothing other than the six words I used)

Are you a gnostic atheist on this god?

and it doesn't matter.

That's what makes me an apathetic agnostic atheist.......even if invisible sky fairies did exist it wouldn't matter much to me.    But it would be quite odd if they did.

God = Sentient creator of known universe...Sentient = able to perceive or feel things.  Nope does not exist, cannot prove it exists and is ridiculous to even think it exists.

In order for a sentient being able to exists as the first thing ever to exist is ridiculous in itself, it took millions (billions) of years for the first sentient being to even appear on earth.

The only way one could imagine a sentient being creating everything is to liken it to a scientist creating something in a lab, or hadron collider or some shit. If that was the case though, we would have been destroyed long ago either through time or disposal of the experiment.

Then how did we all come to be...refer back to IT DOESNT MATTER, we are here now and need to work together to ensure we will still be here tomorrow.

Nope does not exist, cannot prove it exists and is ridiculous to even think it exists.

How can you state with certainty such an entity does not exist?   I agree there is no evidence of such an entity but given an eternity, on what grounds do you claim it is not possible for a sentient entity to emerge from existence?  Note, we have:

• unlimited time for it to evolve
• seemingly unlimited raw material (the substance of existence itself)

Our universe seems to have emerged from the substance of existence itself - as a result of interactions creating forms.   Also, as you note, sentient entities did indeed form too given we exist.   So on what grounds do you impose a limit on sentience and power?    

Nope does not exist, cannot prove it exists and is ridiculous to even think it exists.

While I tend to agree (I do not accept claims of a god/deity/creator without empirical evidence), TiG is correct in that such a declaration cannot be made with absolute 100% certainty, logically speaking. Such a declaration can probably be made with a very high degree of certainty however.

The only way one could imagine a sentient being creating everything

Key word there is "imagine," as in that's what was need to conjure up the idea of a deity/ies of some kind.

Then how did we all come to be.

We as a species evolved. 

i say it with the same certainty that someone can say there is not leprechauns, Easter bunnies, Santa Claus, Unicorns, Lochness Monster, Big Foot, Magical Genies in a bottle, or any other "Magic" in the world.

Lets look at it like this. If you go to the exact moment in which everything was created, call it the Big Bang, and this moment sent everything into motion for billions of years to evolve and create the planet that we live on today while also creating and continuing to create and destroy billions of other Stars and Planets that may or may not also have other life forms on them and then say this was all put into motion by a sentient being  on purpose that had or still has this immeasurable and unlimited power and knowledge...just for kicks?? REALLY?

WTF is the point, there is not one, there is only chance and circumstance that led to the conditions that we were able to live today.  You can see all across the Milky Way galaxy and the entirety of the Universe itself.  If this Sentient all powerful being wanted to make humans and wanted us to live for him then why all the extra bullshit, just make a realm on plane of existence, doesn't even need to be a planet doesn't even need to be round, doesn't need to rely on oxygen or food or reproduction...so many variables go into why we exist and so many variables go into continuing our existence it is ridiculous to even try the mental gymnastics required to put it all on one sentient beings "plan".

Disease, famine, drugs, cancer, Super bacteria, viruses, natural disasters, asteroid strikes, comet collisions, Sun Spots, Black Holes, Super Novas...holy shit, how many more ways is there for man to be utterly destroyed.....gimme a break, all power being and his perfect plan..<|>

BTW where did this "Sentient Being" get his power from, who created him...."He has always been" ..Bullshit, something cannot come from nothing remember.......We will never know how this all started nor will we know how it will end, Earth will be burned and destroyed by its beautiful Sun like millions of planets have before our existence and long after our existence ends....i can say with certainty though that it was not started nor is it been manipulated by a "Sentient being"...unless we want to go back to Science experiment gone awry, but even that is crap.

i say it with the same certainty that someone can say there is not leprechauns, Easter bunnies, Santa Claus, Unicorns, Lochness Monster, Big Foot, Magical Genies in a bottle, or any other "Magic" in the world.

Yes you do.   I am asking you to justify your certainty.  Certainly bears the burden of proof.

Lets look at it like this. If you go to the exact moment in which everything was created, call it the Big Bang, ...

That is only the moment when the known universe started to exist.   The known universe is not necessarily 'everything'.

... and this moment sent everything into motion for billions of years to evolve and create the planet that we live on today while also creating and continuing to create and destroy billions of other Stars and Planets that may or may not also have other life forms on them ...

Agreed (if 'everything' is a reference only to the known universe)

... and then say this was all put into motion by a sentient being  on purpose that had or still has this immeasurable and unlimited power and knowledge...just for kicks?? REALLY?

I did not say anything about 'kicks', etc.   You just changed the question.   Remember:  6 words - 'sentient creator of the known universe'.   I am not asking you to gauge the likelihood of a sentient entity but rather asking you to justify your claim that you KNOW with 100% certainty that it is impossible for a sentient entity to have created the known universe.

WTF is the point, there is not one, there is only chance and circumstance that led to the conditions that we were able to live today. 

Not the question.   Stick with the 6 words.

You can see all across the Milky Way galaxy and the entirety of the Universe itself.  If this Sentient all powerful being wanted to make humans and wanted us to live for him then why all the extra bullshit, just make a realm on plane of existence, doesn't even need to be a planet doesn't even need to be round, doesn't need to rely on oxygen or food or reproduction...so many variables go into why we exist and so many variables go into continuing our existence it is ridiculous to even try the mental gymnastics required to put it all on one sentient beings "plan".

Not asking you to explain why a sentient creator would act.   6 words.

Disease, famine, drugs, cancer, Super bacteria, viruses, natural disasters, asteroid strikes, comet collisions, Sun Spots, Black Holes, Super Novas...holy shit, how many more ways is there for man to be utterly destroyed.....gimme a break, all power being and his perfect plan..<|>

Looks like you are segueing into a religious definition of God.   Stick with the 6 word definition:   'sentient creator of the known universe'.   Nothing else.   There is no perfect plan hypothesis.   Per my definition we know absolutely nothing about this entity other than its hypothesized existence as sentient creator.

BTW where did this "Sentient Being" get his power from, who created him...."He has always been" ..Bullshit, something cannot come from nothing remember.......

Per my definition, the sentient entity origin was not specified.   However, we can infer that it emerged from existence (just as we can infer the known universe emerged from existence).   Its 'power' thus is a result of evolution and the source (existence itself) might have unlimited power for all we know.   To wit, per my definition, the sentient entity was not stated as created.  It could have emerged from existence (formed by the natural interaction of the substance of existence).   Also, per my definition, this sentient entity was not deemed to be eternal.    You are changing the definition.

i can say with certainty though that it was not started nor is it been manipulated by a "Sentient being"...unless we want to go back to Science experiment gone awry, but even that is crap.

You can say it but I have asked you to prove your claim of certainty.   (Certainty bears a burden of proof.)   You have provided lots of dismissive comments and moved well from the definition I provided, but nowhere do you show why it is not possible that our known universe was created by a sentient entity.   

Bottom Line

Nobody can possibly know what you claim to know.   To be 100% certain that the universe was not created by a sentient entity (no other conditions stated) you would have to be omniscient.   You flat out cannot possibly know because there is no way to disprove the hypothesis of 'sentient creator of the known universe'.   We can make arguments that convincingly illustrate why this is incredibly unlikely, but to go to the level of gnostic atheist and claim that there is no possible way that our universe was created is simply untenable.    The logic is irrational - emotional even.

My point here is to dissuade you from making such claims.   It is far better to state that you are fully convinced that there is no god but stop short of claiming that you KNOW FOR CERTAIN that no god (by any definition) exists.   This claim of certainty - the position of the gnostic atheist - discredits all atheists.   When theists criticize atheists they often go to the fringe group (the gnostic atheists) as their reference and pretend all atheists are irrational.

I would prefer the gnostic views stay with the theists.   Let theists run about claiming they KNOW FOR CERTAIN that their God exists.   Let them deal with the backlash of such an untenable position.   Leave the atheists to be rational - 'I am not convinced there is a god' rather than 'There is no god - 100% certainty'.

Your first statement is the issue that all Agnostic Atheists have, you don't want to be wrong so you leave it at 99.9999999999999%....man up and just admit it is not possible, if one day a sentient being shows up and says hey I created you and the entire universe.....naaa, nevermind i cannot even bring myself to say it as a what if. 

You cannot prove with 100% certainty anything does or does not exist.  But, if you can say 100% to anything else man has dreamed up then you can say 100% to a divine creator. There is no leap, only fear of being singled out and ostracized.

The other  2 comments were snippets of whole thoughts and response is out of context of my complete thought.

Lets look at it like this. If you go to the exact moment in which everything was created, call it the Big Bang, and this moment sent everything into motion for billions of years to evolve and create the planet that we live on today while also creating and continuing to create and destroy billions of other Stars and Planets that may or may not also have other life forms on them and then say this was all put into motion by a sentient being on purpose that had or still has this immeasurable and unlimited power and knowledge...just for kicks?? REALLY?

It's a very circuitous path to take, when your biggest concern is what two consenting adults will eventually do with their private parts in the privacy of their bedroom.

That's bullshit and a copout, i know with 100% certainty there is no "Sentient" being that created everything. You cannot say what another knows or does not know, just as you cannot tell a person of religion their god does not exist you cannot tell someone else it does.  You know what you know.

I do not have to prove Fairies with blue wings do not exist anymore than anyone should have to prove a sentient being that created everything by farting out his ass exists.  Just because people need a reason to exist does not mean I have to agree with them. 

The day a sentient being comes and says "Hi all" I will appoligise and admit I'm wron, but until that day happens, and I'm not holding my breath, I put the whole "Sentient Being" scenario in the same category as Zombies, Fairies and Marvel Superheroes. i.e. Not Real

Your first statement is the issue that all Agnostic Atheists have, you don't want to be wrong so you leave it at 99.9999999999999%....

No, that is not the reason.  The reason is that agnostic atheists accept our limitations as human beings.  Gnostic atheists (arrogantly) seem to think they are omniscient.   Exact same problem with the gnostic theists (and there are quite a few of those).  The agnostic atheist has a solid logical and evidence-based argument.   The gnostic atheist comes across as angry and irrational.   

man up and just admit it is not possible,  ...

This is not a question of balls.  It is a question of what a human being can know.   In fact there is nothing we have learned through science that precludes a creator entity as I described.   Your position of certainty is entirely unsupported by human knowledge.   That should give you pause. 

I was on a role...what can you do (shrug)

"Your position of certainty is entirely unsupported by human knowledge."

Quite opposite. My position of certainty is entirely supported by current human knowledge.

That's bullshit and a copout,

You did not quote what you thought was bullshit thus your comment makes no sense.

i know with 100% certainty there is no "Sentient" being that created everything.

Prove that.   100% certainty bears the burden of proof.  So let's hear it.

You cannot say what another knows or does not know, just as you cannot tell a person of religion their god does not exist you cannot tell someone else it does.  You know what you know.

I am not telling you what you know.  I am saying that no human being is omniscient (knows everything).   Are you claiming to be omniscient?   See there are limits to what we know.   For you to dismiss all possibilities and insist that you are 100% right is untenable.  Worse, everyone knows your claim is absurd.   So why make it?

Quite opposite. My position of certainty is entirely supported by current human knowledge.

Illustrate that.   Making claims is not an argument.  Show how human knowledge enables one to state with certainty that it is impossible that a sentient entity created the known universe.   Deliver the proof.

Is it possible for a human being to know with 100% certainty [hold truth] that the known universe was not created by a sentient entity?

our first statement is the issue that all Agnostic Atheists have, you don't want to be wrong so you leave it at 99.9999999999999%....

It's not about being right or wrong. It's about what is probable. 99.99...% is a high probability. But it is not 100% certainty, which no one can logically claim there is either way.

man up and just admit it is not possible, if one day a sentient being shows up and says hey I created you and the entire universe.....naaa, nevermind i cannot even bring myself to say it as a what if.

If said sentient being shows up, I'll admit I'm wrong.

You cannot prove with 100% certainty anything does or does not exist.

Glad you agree. Therefore, logically, o0ne cannot say with 100% certainty that god exists or doesn't exist. You can only claim with a high degree of probability.

But, if you can say 100% to anything else man has dreamed up then you can say 100% to a divine creator. 

That's going on the assumption that there is no divine creator to begin with. it's starting out with the 100% certainty. 

There is no leap, only fear of being singled out and ostracized.

That might bother others or influence their thinking. But it has no effect on me. My position and reasoning doesn't change due to emotional appeals or fear.

The other 2 comments were snippets of whole thoughts and response is out of context of my complete thought.

Then you might want to avoid snippets and include whole thoughts, so there is no misunderstanding. Just saying.

You are missing the point. This "Sentient being" is the same as 3 headed dragons with blue glittery wings.  Same evidence exists for both...none.  Nothing to prove. I know both are fake. Whatever evidence you use to prove the Dragon is fake, exact same evidence is used to prove all myths and mythology is fake, including the "Sentient Being"...that is it, it is not complicated.

You seem to be glossing right over that point because you know there is no defense for it. You are taking into account that religion and a God figure has been around since the beginning of time and are unwilling to step away from the premise and just say, No, I'm not going to be drug into that fantasy. We as intelligent beings have been making up stories of myth and mythology since we could communicate.  It does not make any of it more real.

You are missing the point.

I made the point.   So by definition I am not missing it.

This "Sentient being" is the same as 3 headed dragons with blue glittery wings. 

No, demonstrably, it is not.   You are moving the goal post.   Stick with the challenge made @6.2.5:

TiG   @ 6.2.5

"God = sentient creator of the known universe  (period.  no other attributes.  no stories.  no presumed love.  no presumed afterlife.  no anthropomorphic bearded father figure.  no angels.  no Jesus.  nothing other than the six words I used)"

Same evidence exists for both...none. 

Correct on this point.  No evidence exists.

Nothing to prove.

Yes there is.  You said that a sentient creator of the known universe is impossible .  You claim truth - 100% certainty.  Something that no human being can claim.  Thus I challenge you to prove your claim.   

I know both are fake. Whatever evidence you use to prove the Dragon is fake, exact same evidence is used to prove all myths and mythology is fake, including the "Sentient Being"...that is it, it is not complicated.

Then deliver the proof showing that a sentient creator of the known universe is impossible.    Many would love to see this proof.   Indeed, if you could deliver this proof you would be famous.   So what do you have to lose?   

You are taking into account that religion and a God figure has been around since the beginning of time and are unwilling to step away from the premise  ...

Just address the challenge.  These side conjectures simply illustrate that you know you cannot back up your claim of certainty - a claim of omniscience.  

If "God = sentient creator of the known universe" = no evidence of existence and 3 headed dragon = no evidence of existence and anything else ever conjured in the human mind through myth, fantasy or drug induced commas = no evidence of existence, then they belong in the same bucket, that bucket is....they don't exist with 100% certainty, end of story, you cannot make them real no matter how hard you want to.

This political correctness of saying ..oh i don't know, as an effort to not offend or to seem more inclusive is crap, no one is going to argue for the Fairies and dragons so why argue for the Sentient Being?  Is there more evidence for one over the other??  Nope.

The rest of your statements contradict your agreement that no evidence exists and therefore i am not sure we can continue if you continue to be intellectually dishonest with yourself.

Let me add something to chew on:

 The Microchip.  Before the invention of the microchip, there was no evidence of its existence and therefore it didn't exist, i wasn't real with 100% certainty, it was not until evidence of its existence came to pass that it became something real and actually existed. So until evidence of a Sentient being comes to pass it will continue to not exist with the same certainty of the microchip before it was invented.

they don't exist with 100% certainty,

TiG is asking you to prove that. Simply saying it doesn't exist with absolute certainty because you say so is not enough.

if you continue to be intellectually dishonest with yourself.

*Snort* It's not TiG who is being intellectually dishonest.

The Microchip.

A poor analogy. The microchip is simply a product of technological development. 

TiG is asking you to prove that. Simply saying it doesn't exist with absolute certainty because you say so is not enough.

no evidence of existence is the proof.

If someone has some evidence to dispute it then present it and let it be weighed. You cannot say oh i think there is a .00000001% chance it exists but there is no evidence to prove that .0000001%...at that point it becomes a belief not a truth.

see above, if you have to alter your perception of reality to fit your own definitions then it is intellectually dishonest. 

Microchip works at a level that anyone can understand, nothing exists with 100% certainty, until it doesn't.

.they don't exist with 100% certainty,

No that is fallacious reasoning.    Here is a simple example to clarify.   We have no evidence of extraterrestrials.   Does that mean they do not exist?    

you cannot make them real no matter how hard you want to

If you think I am trying to make them real then you are not paying attention (at all).   Indeed that would mean that you have missed every point I have made.    I am trying to reform you into an agnostic atheist.   Join the ranks of the rational who simply state that they are not convinced a god exists but are willing to consider evidence to the contrary.

This political correctness of saying ..oh i don't know, as an effort to not offend or to seem more inclusive is crap, no one is going to argue for the Fairies and dragons so why argue for the Sentient Being?  Is there more evidence for one over the other??  Nope.

Again you are off on silly tangents.   Political correctness has nothing to do with it.   This is all about one self-labeling atheist and then proceeding to make irrational claims of omniscience.   

The rest of your statements contradict your agreement that no evidence exists and therefore i am not sure we can continue if you continue to be intellectually dishonest with yourself.

Show the contradiction.  Again, you simply make claims and fail repeatedly to deliver a logical argument.  

 The Microchip.  Before the invention of the microchip, there was no evidence of its existence and therefore it didn't exist, i wasn't real with 100% certainty, it was not until evidence of its existence came to pass that it became something real and actually existed. So until evidence of a Sentient being comes to pass it will continue to not exist with the same certainty of the microchip before it was invented.

You cannot be serious.   See my opening point on extraterrestrials.   Applies to the above nonsense equally well.   By your logic extraterrestrials do not exist with 100% certainty.   

no evidence of existence is the proof.

So you have proof that extraterrestrials do not exist?   What on Earth is wrong with NASA, et. al. who continue to operate as though extraterrestrials likely exist?    We have zero evidence of extraterrestrial life forms (especially sentient ones) yet we continue to search for them.

Your logic is horribly flawed.

no evidence of existence is the proof.

No, it's not. All it means is that claims to the contrary lack validity.

If someone has some evidence to dispute it then present it and let it be weighed. You cannot say oh i think there is a .00000001% chance it exists but there is no evidence to prove that .0000001%...at that point it becomes a belief not a truth.

Since something is not demonstrated either way, one cannot logically conclude with absolute certainty. Only probability. You can say something is probable or improbable with such a high degree of probability, that it can be assumed to be certain. But one cannot say with absolute 100% certainty. So tell me, at what % does something go from a degree of certainty to belief, or vice versa?

see above, if you have to alter your perception of reality to fit your own definitions then it is intellectually dishonest

I am neither altering or defining anything. I am speaking in terms of probability. 100% probability = absolute certainty.

Microchip works at a level that anyone can understand, nothing exists with 100% certainty, until it doesn't.

If you say a microchip doesn't exist with absolute certainty, then that statement is clearly wrong when it is invented. Therefore, you cannot say it doesn't exist with absolute certainty. Unless you are omniscient. 

Your logic is horribly flawed.

Understatement alert!

But, if you can say 100% to anything else man has dreamed up then you can say 100% to a divine creator. There is no leap, only fear of being singled out and ostracized.

I agree.

"Sentient being" is just another being whose origin began in the minds of humans.  Humans, who have probably been raised in a god based culture.

"Why do I exist?" seems to be of utmost concern to our species today.  It is impossible for me to say that I would have asked myself that question because I was indoctrinated to believe that I was Yahweh's creation and I was created for his divine purpose.

However, if I had not been indoctrinated into the Christian faith, I wonder if I would have questioned my own existence.

Were the first salesmen, peddling god belief, answering a need or selling a new product and trying to create a need?  Or was it some of both?

What about the people who created fairies, dragons, ghosts, angels and assorted invisible mischief makers, monsters and guardians?

Superstitions?  Are there any valid superstitions?  Who invented them and what purpose did they serve?

Some people have been very imaginative creating gods and monsters for any number of reasons including to entertain and to control.

At what point will people be able to separate fact from fiction?  Or is it possible to erase from our minds the various fantasies that we have had imprinted on our minds via our superstitious ancestors?

We have no evidence of extraterrestrials.   Does that mean they do not exist?

ETs - another life form could exist.  Do I believe that they created life on this planet?  No.  

Nor do I understand what other life forms would have to do with a "sentient being" that is responsible for all existence.

DRHunk stated that the absence of evidence in a sentient creator is PROOF that no such entity exists.

That is a logical fallacy.  But rather than get technical I simply offered an example to expose the fallacious logic.

I substituted, in his claim, ET for sentient creator:  we have no evidence of ET but that is not PROOF that ET does not exist.

This debate is about gnostic atheism vs. agnostic atheism.

It is not a debate about whether or not God exists.

( DRHunk insists he is a gnostic atheist.  He insists he KNOWS [holds truth] - 100% certainty - that no god exists.  I defined a hypothetical abstract god and asked him to prove it does not exist.  )

DRHunk stated that the absence of evidence in a sentient creator is PROOF that no such entity exists.

I understood it to mean that humans invented the word "god" and then gave the word a meaning to fill in a gap in our understanding of creation.

The word "god" is a word derived from someone's imagination so arguing over whether an imaginary being exists is like arguing about whether the Tooth Fairy exists.

At least, that is how I understood it.   And that is how I think.  "God" is a word used to fill in a gap of lack of understanding existence.  The more we learn, the smaller the Christian "god" gets.  Tens of thousands of other gods have already been discarded as myths.  I don't see the need to invent a new one and call it "sentient creator" to try to explain existence since that has not worked out very well for our species to date.

I don't see the need to invent a new one and call it "sentient creator" to try to explain existence since that has not worked out very well for our species to date.

Do you think I am trying to argue that a god exists?

Do you think I am trying to argue that a god exists?

No.  But I am a gnostic atheist, also.  I am agreeing with DRHunk that people are afraid to admit being 100% certain that a manmade imaginary term "god" exists.  I believe it is because we are indoctrinated to give credibility to the concept even though we have no idea of the origins of the concept of the term god. 

God = "sentient being" is still describing something that is completely illogical and without foundation.

God = "sentient being" is still describing something that is completely illogical and without foundation.

Yes there is no evidence supporting this definition of god.   That is not the point.

A gnostic atheist holds that s/he KNOWS [holds truth] with 100% certainty that no god exists.   

A gnostic atheist claims that it is impossible for any god to exist.   Not that it is improbable but that under no possible circumstances could a god (typically a sentient creator entity) exist.

A gnostic atheist claims that s/he cannot possibly be wrong about this.

I understood it to mean that humans invented the word "god" and then gave the word a meaning to fill in a gap in our understanding of creation.

That much is given. Many cultures used (specialized) deities as an explanation for things that were not known or understood. Example: The sun rises and set because Apollo pulls it across the sky with his chariot. People did not know about Earth's rotation. Monotheistic religions simply altered that explanation to make the sun revolving around the earth (Earth-centric view of the universe).

The word "god" is a word derived from someone's imagination so arguing over whether an imaginary being exists is like arguing about whether the Tooth Fairy exists.

Except many theists will state with near or total certainty that god is an actual being and exists.

"God" is a word used to fill in a gap of lack of understanding existence. The more we learn, the smaller the Christian "god" gets.

While probably true, see previous statement.

Tens of thousands of other gods have already been discarded as myths. I don't see the need to invent a new one and call it "sentient creator" to try to explain existence since that has not worked out very well for our species to date.

many cultures have their own "creator" god, just as the Abrahamistic religions do. And each uses their god as an explanation and also believes such an entity actually exists. To each religion, it's all other "god/s" that are false or not true.

I am agreeing with DRHunk that people are afraid to admit being 100% certain that a manmade imaginary term "god" exists.

This is just one of his strawman arguments.   It is not the point of the debate.   We were not debating strength of personal beliefs but rather the untenable position of claiming one's viewpoint regarding a god is 100% correct and cannot possibly be wrong.

Rather than make claims that are impossible for any human being (i.e. no way I could be wrong) it is vastly superior to make a well-founded logical statement of 'I am not convinced a god exists' or 'there is no evidence supporting a claim that a god exists'.   Much better than 'I am right and there is no possible way I am wrong' which is a claim of omniscience.

Stop being condescending. It's self-indulgent and devastating to discussion.

Please stop conflating different narratives together. It's self-indulgent. Keep in mind that free-thinkers are not the "defenders" of all the truth in this world. Many people have justifiable worldviews which differ from your own. In addition, you or somebody else would likely have gotten around to the question of personal  or collective existence without religion entanglements in this world.  For example, above in the article attached to this Agnosticism/FFRF discussion I reference some questions from Steve Jones, the professor of genetics at University College London and an atheist:

“Science cannot answer the questions that philosophers or children ask:

1. Why are we here?

2. What is the point of being alive?

3. How ought we to behave?"

Ironically, and though I have not fully thought through my opinion yet, reading through the thread from where I picked up today, I can get an inkling of why DRHunk suggest you "ditch" the "Agnostic" hyphen attachment. Atheists here are strongly set to eradicate any influence of a God in the Earth! Ahead of any consideration for the consequences of simply leaving religions alone. (That is, you "vote world religions off the 'island.'") At least, until God/Gods/ET literally manifest in nature for man's what, manipulation?

The "Agnostic-Atheist" argument going on here as far as I can tell seems to be an argument without a difference.

A gnostic atheist claims that it is impossible for any god to exist.

I realize that.  

I am a gnostic atheist.

God is just a word created by ancient men.  It has no real meaning beyond describing mythical, supernatural creatures that ancient men believed controlled various aspects of life, death and explained existence.  That is why I am 100% certain that "god" does not exist in the same way that I am convinced that other mythical creations do not exist.

For a person to be agnostic, they have to have a description of a god or gods that makes it plausible that such a supernatural creature exists despite the fact that there is zero evidence of its (or their) existence.

I am thankful that I live in an era that we can discuss these issues freely - at least online.  LOL!

Exactly.

Keep in mind that free-thinkers are not the "defenders" of all the truth in this world.

Never claimed that I, or they, are.

However, religions and gods have come and gone forever and a day.  None of them are "sacred" or should be off limits to discussion and scrutiny.

I don't know who has ever claimed that science has all the answers.  But, why should a god be inserted as a place holder for the unknown?  

As far as "how to act", the Bible should never be used as a guideline for how to act without disregarding everything except "treat others as you would have them treat you".  Stoning your unruly children to death or other people for various infractions as proscribed by the writers of the Bible could have never been considered "moral" by anyone who was moral. 

Atheists here are strongly set to eradicate any influence of a God in the Earth!

If atheists can eradicate it, then is it a god?

I am thankful that I live in an era that we can discuss these issues freely - at least online.  LOL!

Just don't run for political office and admit to being an atheist.    We only trust superstitious candidates in this country!

But, why should a god be inserted as a place holder for the unknown?

No informed believer ever says that. Our faith is not founded on "unknowns." Oh, perhaps it is an Atheist, who would come up with the word, 'placeholder' as a useful substitute. What hubris. Furthermore, if you are an Gnostic Atheist, you do not believe in God. Thus, all of this is moot. You would do better to be getting on with your life and leaving religious doctrine to "those other guys."

Just don't run for political office and admit to being an atheist.

Even Thomas Jefferson ran into trouble back in the day.

An interesting overview of the religious beliefs of US presidents...

pbs

Ulysses S. Grant was not a member of a church, nor was he baptized. He is often categorized as a Methodist, likely because his wife was a Methodist or because of an incident in which a Methodist minister allegedly sprinkled water on a sleeping Grant after he had taken ill and announced the baptism to the public. Grant himself had a negative experience with organized religion in his youth. While at West Point, he got into trouble for not attending religious services. He wrote to a cousin: "We are not only obliged to go to church, but must march there by companies. This is not republican."

So, why are you continually trying, again?

For a person to be agnostic, they have to have a description of a god or gods that makes it plausible that such a supernatural creature exists despite the fact that there is zero evidence of its (or their) existence.

Where does the qualification 'have to have a description of a god or gods that makes it plausible that such a supernatural creature exists' come from?    I have never seen that qualification before.

Compare these two:

gnostic atheist:   No gods exist.   It is impossible for me to be wrong about this claim.

agnostic atheist:  I am not convinced that a god exists.   But present me some evidence and I will consider it.

Both are atheists.   The difference is that the agnostic atheist does not claim to be omniscient.   The agnostic atheist does not hold a description of a god or gods in his or her mind any more than a gnostic atheist and there is no requirement for an agnostic atheist to define a plausible god.    The key difference is that the agnostic atheist admits s/he does not know everything (and thus could be wrong).  The gnostic atheist insists that s/he could not possibly be wrong about this.

No informed believer ever says that. Our faith is not founded on "unknowns."

Really?  Why is it called "faith" then?

Where does the qualification 'have to have a description of a god or gods that makes it plausible that such a supernatural creature exists' come from?    I have never seen that qualification before.

If there is not a plausible definition, then why would anyone give it any possibility of existence?

So, why are you continually trying, again?

I find the belief in myths to be detrimental to society throughout the history of our species.  

You owe us all an article on what Atheist government and leadership would look like. And, in that article, share with us all what will happen to all the 'malcontents' who choose to protest your politics. Manage this!

If there is not a plausible definition, then why would anyone give it any possibility of existence?

Because agnostic atheists do not presume to know everything.    Agnostic atheists (agnosticism) admit that we cannot possibly know everything.   Thus we cannot possibly make a statement of 100% certainty about reality.  We cannot, for example, assert that it is impossible for a sentient creator of the known universe to exist.  Since that would qualify as 'god' to many people and since all of scientific knowledge to-date cannot exclude the possibility of a sentient creator, the agnostic atheist is on solid, defensible ground.   We are following the evidence, respecting logic and not claiming to be omniscient.

Gnostic atheists, please note, necessarily must have a definition of god  because they are saying that no god could possibly exist.   Unless they define 'god' that statement has no meaning.   They necessarily must describe, in some way, that which they claim does not exist otherwise their claim is nonsense.  

You owe us all an article on what Atheist government and leadership would look like

Really?   I'm not sure why you think so.    Anyway I support secular government, not "atheist government".    Governments work best when they're entirely silent on matters related to personal superstitions, at least as long as those superstitions don't infringe other people's rights.

But as far as atheist or agnostic leaders there have been a few in my view like Washington, Jefferson and Grant, and many more in legislative or key influential positions like Ben Franklin, Pete Stark (CA), Barney Frank (MA), Rocky Anderson (SLC mayor), Clarence Darrow, etc.     There are a number of others but many were not public about their atheism until after they were out of office.    The names I recognize on this list are generally all people of excellent character, something I've never been able to say about superstitious folks in general.

en.wikipedia

Why would an atheist government be run any different then any that have existed in the past? And why would there be any malcontents when the Constitution guarantees them the right to worship any myth that they choose or not to worship at all? Being an atheist would not make a person any better or worse of a President or leader. I mean if they were open about it and they were elected anyway, what possible difference could it make beyond the fact that they would not attend any form of church?

They necessarily must describe, in some way, that which they claim does not exist otherwise their claim is nonsense.

We do. God is just a word.

What does the word mean, Randy?

In the phrase:  'God does not exist' ('or no God exists') if you do not have a definition for the word 'God' then it either means anything or nothing.  Either way, the claim is nonsense.

Gnostic atheists, please note, necessarily must have a definition of god  because they are saying that no god could possibly exist.

"God" has not been defined in a way that I find capable of existing outside of defining ALL existence as god.

As far as "god" being a supernatural creator of existence - NO, absolutely no reason to accept that as being possible because that begins the question of what created "god" and then what created the "what" that created "god" and so on.  

Exactly.

You do know that sometimes when we are not smart enough to know the information, we find comfort in constructs that we do understand. That is where man is when we talk about the infinite. Tig's point is not the word god, but the idea that we don't know everything, so there is no way to say anything about this with absolutism. 

Our faith is not founded on "unknowns."

So you can prove there's a god then? 

Oh, perhaps it is an Atheist, who would come up with the word, 'placeholder' as a useful substitute.

Who would come up with that as a substitute? What would be the point? For that matter, what's yours?

 Furthermore, if you are an Gnostic Atheist, you do not believe in God.

Both agnostic and gnostic atheists do not believe in god. I identify more as agnostic atheist. Although, I tend to use the term "weak atheist," as it's an equivalent terms to agnostic atheist.

Thus, all of this is moot. You would do better to be getting on with your life and leaving religious doctrine to "those other guys."

That's for me to decide. What difference does it make how I spend my time, including discussing religious doctrine or concepts?

Ironically, and though I have not fully thought through my opinion yet, reading through the thread from where I picked up today, I can get an inkling of why DRHunk suggest you "ditch" the "Agnostic" hyphen attachment.

DRHunk is claiming absolute certainty, which is logically unfeasible.

Atheists here are strongly set to eradicate any influence of a God in the Earth!

Now you're sounding paranoid.

Ahead of any consideration for the consequences of simply leaving religions alone. (That is, you "vote world religions off the 'island.'")

We're simply discussing religion. What's wrong with that?

At least, until God/Gods/ET literally manifest in nature for man's what, manipulation?

No, proof.

The "Agnostic-Atheist" argument going on here as far as I can tell seems to be an argument without a difference.

The difference is the degree of certainty in which one makes the claim either way.

Stop being condescending. It's self-indulgent and devastating to discussion.

Not condescending. Simply an observation. Also funny how two words "devastates" a discussion.

"God" has not been defined in a way that I find capable of existing outside of defining ALL existence as god.

I will accept that.  But a gnostic atheist claims that no god could ever exist - by any definition.   What if a definition were to surface that is 'possible'?   Does that not illustrate that the gnostic atheist is indeed wrong?   Can you really say that in all of eternity there will never be a definition of god that is capable of existing??

As far as "god" being a supernatural creator of existence - NO, absolutely no reason to accept that as being possible because that begins the question of what created "god" and then what created the "what" that created "god" and so on.  

I never wrote 'supernatural'.  My hypothetical god was defined as simply sentient and creator.  That is it.  I did this quite carefully and on purpose.

As far as what created god, you presume that god must have a sentient creator.  I made no such requirement.   A 'god' could emerge from existence just like our known universe likely emerged from existence.   No creator required.    I submit to you that the hypothetical description I offered is entirely possible based upon everything we know thus far (scientifically and logically).   I doubt it, but no way can I exclude the possibility.   And nobody else can (honestly) exclude the possibility.

What if a definition were to surface that is 'possible'?

Changing the definition of the "tooth fairy" could make it possible, also.

To date, what is the origin of the word god and what did it describe?  

What does the word "god" describe today?

So maybe we should all be ignostic and require a clear definition of what the word "god" means and even which "god" by name and then decide if it is even 1 trillionth of one percent possible. 

Can we agree that Zeus does not exist or is it possible that Zeus does exist?

In the US, the discussion usually revolves around does Yahweh exist and is the Bible the word of Yahweh?  Believers in Yahweh are gnostic atheists when it comes to all other gods and this is acceptable?  Why?  Because they believe in the possibility of at least one god?

You owe us all an article on what Atheist government and leadership would look like.

I imagine it would be much like