If you are HONEST, you are AGNOSTIC

[diver52]

I would have to agree agnosticism is the only logical position. That does not preclude belief, just the acknowledgement that belief does not equate to knowledge. Frankly, I have yet to meet anyone who lacked belief regarding deities.

Hello, I am WinterBorn. I do not believe in any deity. Pleased to meet you.

Now you have.

No, I have met someone who makes that claim. You certainly aren't the first there. You have no opinions of any kind regarding the existence of any deity?

Just one. I don't believe they exist.

That is not an opinion. We are still at the level of a claim. You may be the exception to my experience. You are saying that on the subject of the divinity of Jesus (just as an example) you are entirely neutral?

 

[ViewFromAbove]

That sounds like you have “no belief” (weak atheist), as distinct from having a belief ... that there are no gods (strong atheist).
An honest agnostic is also a “weak atheist”.

"Definition of atheist
: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism"

Not sure where you get the "weak" or "strong" version of this. But the fact that I do not believe in any deity is the definition of "Atheist".

I also do not believe CURRENT concepts & experiences about a deity or religious claims, but I am open minded about that which I do not yet know.
Here is a definition that differentiates atheist types:

“Negative atheism, also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any type of atheism where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities but does not explicitly assert that there are none.“ ...

Negative and positive atheism - Wikipedia

The definition I posted before is from Merriam Webster. The definition you posted is from Wikipedia. That alone should answer the question.

I don't weakly not believe in any god. I don't strongly not believe in any god. I simply do not believe in any god at all. You are trying to argue a moot point with semantics.

Again, per Merriam Webster:
"Definition of agnostic
(Entry 1 of 2)

1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god"

That does not describe my beliefs.

Merriam Webster is conservative and often behind current Internet-speed cultural thoughts.
How about the definition of IGNOTICISM:

1. The philosophical position that existence of God is meaningless, because the term "god" has no unambiguous definition. Ignosticism requires a good, non-controversial definition of god before arguing on its existence.

ignosticism - Wiktionary

The reason I think Merriam Webster is a better reference than Wikipedia is not that one is more up to date. It is because Wikipedia can be edited by users, regardless of their qualifications.

The definition of "Atheist" is not conservative or liberal. And regardless of "internet-speed cultural thoughts", words still have specific definitions and meanings.

The definition of Atheist" is someone who does not believe in god.

The original definition of “atheist” is one who has no belief about theism.
A-theism.

 

[WinterBorn]

I would have to agree agnosticism is the only logical position. That does not preclude belief, just the acknowledgement that belief does not equate to knowledge. Frankly, I have yet to meet anyone who lacked belief regarding deities.

Hello, I am WinterBorn. I do not believe in any deity. Pleased to meet you.

Now you have.

No, I have met someone who makes that claim. You certainly aren't the first there. You have no opinions of any kind regarding the existence of any deity?

Just one. I don't believe they exist.

That is not an opinion. We are still at the level of a claim. You may be the exception to my experience. You are saying that on the subject of the divinity of Jesus (just as an example) you are entirely neutral?

That is my belief. And that is at the root of all other opinions regardling religion.

When I say I do not believe in any god, that pretty much answers the question of my opinion on the divinity of Jesus. If there is no god, there is no source of divinity for Jesus.

 

[WinterBorn]

"Definition of atheist
: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism"

Not sure where you get the "weak" or "strong" version of this. But the fact that I do not believe in any deity is the definition of "Atheist".

I also do not believe CURRENT concepts & experiences about a deity or religious claims, but I am open minded about that which I do not yet know.
Here is a definition that differentiates atheist types:

“Negative atheism, also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any type of atheism where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities but does not explicitly assert that there are none.“ ...

Negative and positive atheism - Wikipedia

The definition I posted before is from Merriam Webster. The definition you posted is from Wikipedia. That alone should answer the question.

I don't weakly not believe in any god. I don't strongly not believe in any god. I simply do not believe in any god at all. You are trying to argue a moot point with semantics.

Again, per Merriam Webster:
"Definition of agnostic
(Entry 1 of 2)

1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god"

That does not describe my beliefs.

Merriam Webster is conservative and often behind current Internet-speed cultural thoughts.
How about the definition of IGNOTICISM:

1. The philosophical position that existence of God is meaningless, because the term "god" has no unambiguous definition. Ignosticism requires a good, non-controversial definition of god before arguing on its existence.

ignosticism - Wiktionary

The reason I think Merriam Webster is a better reference than Wikipedia is not that one is more up to date. It is because Wikipedia can be edited by users, regardless of their qualifications.

The definition of "Atheist" is not conservative or liberal. And regardless of "internet-speed cultural thoughts", words still have specific definitions and meanings.

The definition of Atheist" is someone who does not believe in god.

The original definition of “atheist” is one who has no belief about theism.
A-theism.

Deconstructing a word does not give you the proper definition.

"Theism" is the belief in god or gods. So, if I have no belief in theism, I have no belief in any god.

You are trying to argue semantics to save your claim about my beliefs. When you have to redefine words to continue your argument, you have lost. The fact that you started an argument by claiming you know more about my beliefs, you had no grounds for your side of the argument.

If I sincerely believe that the color yellow is actually blue, you can argue that yellow is yellow and blue is blue, but you cannot argue that I do not believe that yellow is blue. You have no basis for arguing that I believe something besides what I believe.

 

[diver52]

"Definition of atheist
: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods : one who subscribes to or advocates atheism"

Not sure where you get the "weak" or "strong" version of this. But the fact that I do not believe in any deity is the definition of "Atheist".

I also do not believe CURRENT concepts & experiences about a deity or religious claims, but I am open minded about that which I do not yet know.
Here is a definition that differentiates atheist types:

“Negative atheism, also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any type of atheism where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities but does not explicitly assert that there are none.“ ...

Negative and positive atheism - Wikipedia

The definition I posted before is from Merriam Webster. The definition you posted is from Wikipedia. That alone should answer the question.

I don't weakly not believe in any god. I don't strongly not believe in any god. I simply do not believe in any god at all. You are trying to argue a moot point with semantics.

Again, per Merriam Webster:
"Definition of agnostic
(Entry 1 of 2)

1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god"

That does not describe my beliefs.

Merriam Webster is conservative and often behind current Internet-speed cultural thoughts.
How about the definition of IGNOTICISM:

1. The philosophical position that existence of God is meaningless, because the term "god" has no unambiguous definition. Ignosticism requires a good, non-controversial definition of god before arguing on its existence.

ignosticism - Wiktionary

The reason I think Merriam Webster is a better reference than Wikipedia is not that one is more up to date. It is because Wikipedia can be edited by users, regardless of their qualifications.

The definition of "Atheist" is not conservative or liberal. And regardless of "internet-speed cultural thoughts", words still have specific definitions and meanings.

The definition of Atheist" is someone who does not believe in god.

The original definition of “atheist” is one who has no belief about theism.
A-theism.

Opinions differ. This is from the Stanford Philosophy Department. Atheism and Agnosticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[WinterBorn]

I also do not believe CURRENT concepts & experiences about a deity or religious claims, but I am open minded about that which I do not yet know.
Here is a definition that differentiates atheist types:

“Negative atheism, also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any type of atheism where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities but does not explicitly assert that there are none.“ ...

Negative and positive atheism - Wikipedia

The definition I posted before is from Merriam Webster. The definition you posted is from Wikipedia. That alone should answer the question.

I don't weakly not believe in any god. I don't strongly not believe in any god. I simply do not believe in any god at all. You are trying to argue a moot point with semantics.

Again, per Merriam Webster:
"Definition of agnostic
(Entry 1 of 2)

1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god"

That does not describe my beliefs.

Merriam Webster is conservative and often behind current Internet-speed cultural thoughts.
How about the definition of IGNOTICISM:

1. The philosophical position that existence of God is meaningless, because the term "god" has no unambiguous definition. Ignosticism requires a good, non-controversial definition of god before arguing on its existence.

ignosticism - Wiktionary

The reason I think Merriam Webster is a better reference than Wikipedia is not that one is more up to date. It is because Wikipedia can be edited by users, regardless of their qualifications.

The definition of "Atheist" is not conservative or liberal. And regardless of "internet-speed cultural thoughts", words still have specific definitions and meanings.

The definition of Atheist" is someone who does not believe in god.

The original definition of “atheist” is one who has no belief about theism.
A-theism.

Opinions differ. This is from the Stanford Philosophy Department. Atheism and Agnosticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

And since the existence of god cannot be proven or disproven, it boils down to a matter of belief. And an atheist does not believe in the existence of any god.

 

[diver52]

I would have to agree agnosticism is the only logical position. That does not preclude belief, just the acknowledgement that belief does not equate to knowledge. Frankly, I have yet to meet anyone who lacked belief regarding deities.

Hello, I am WinterBorn. I do not believe in any deity. Pleased to meet you.

Now you have.

No, I have met someone who makes that claim. You certainly aren't the first there. You have no opinions of any kind regarding the existence of any deity?

Just one. I don't believe they exist.

That is not an opinion. We are still at the level of a claim. You may be the exception to my experience. You are saying that on the subject of the divinity of Jesus (just as an example) you are entirely neutral?

That is my belief. And that is at the root of all other opinions regardling religion.

When I say I do not believe in any god, that pretty much answers the question of my opinion on the divinity of Jesus. If there is no god, there is no source of divinity for Jesus.

I'm not quite clear on your response. Are you saying it is your belief that you are entirely neutral on the question?

 

[WinterBorn]

Hello, I am WinterBorn. I do not believe in any deity. Pleased to meet you.

Now you have.

No, I have met someone who makes that claim. You certainly aren't the first there. You have no opinions of any kind regarding the existence of any deity?

Just one. I don't believe they exist.

That is not an opinion. We are still at the level of a claim. You may be the exception to my experience. You are saying that on the subject of the divinity of Jesus (just as an example) you are entirely neutral?

That is my belief. And that is at the root of all other opinions regardling religion.

When I say I do not believe in any god, that pretty much answers the question of my opinion on the divinity of Jesus. If there is no god, there is no source of divinity for Jesus.

I'm not quite clear on your response. Are you saying it is your belief that you are entirely neutral on the question?

Does the belief in the divinity of Jesus stand alone? Or is that divinity something that comes from god?

 

[ViewFromAbove]

I also do not believe CURRENT concepts & experiences about a deity or religious claims, but I am open minded about that which I do not yet know.
Here is a definition that differentiates atheist types:

“Negative atheism, also called weak atheism and soft atheism, is any type of atheism where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities but does not explicitly assert that there are none.“ ...

Negative and positive atheism - Wikipedia

The definition I posted before is from Merriam Webster. The definition you posted is from Wikipedia. That alone should answer the question.

I don't weakly not believe in any god. I don't strongly not believe in any god. I simply do not believe in any god at all. You are trying to argue a moot point with semantics.

Again, per Merriam Webster:
"Definition of agnostic
(Entry 1 of 2)

1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god"

That does not describe my beliefs.

Merriam Webster is conservative and often behind current Internet-speed cultural thoughts.
How about the definition of IGNOTICISM:

1. The philosophical position that existence of God is meaningless, because the term "god" has no unambiguous definition. Ignosticism requires a good, non-controversial definition of god before arguing on its existence.

ignosticism - Wiktionary

The reason I think Merriam Webster is a better reference than Wikipedia is not that one is more up to date. It is because Wikipedia can be edited by users, regardless of their qualifications.

The definition of "Atheist" is not conservative or liberal. And regardless of "internet-speed cultural thoughts", words still have specific definitions and meanings.

The definition of Atheist" is someone who does not believe in god.

The original definition of “atheist” is one who has no belief about theism.
A-theism.

Opinions differ. This is from the Stanford Philosophy Department. Atheism and Agnosticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Yes, opinions & definitions differ & change over time.
That Stanford philosophy encyclopedia piece is written by ONE philosopher, Paul Draper.
He noted that other philosophers have different views. Good discussion!
Thank you.

 

[diver52]

No, I have met someone who makes that claim. You certainly aren't the first there. You have no opinions of any kind regarding the existence of any deity?

Just one. I don't believe they exist.

That is not an opinion. We are still at the level of a claim. You may be the exception to my experience. You are saying that on the subject of the divinity of Jesus (just as an example) you are entirely neutral?

That is my belief. And that is at the root of all other opinions regardling religion.

When I say I do not believe in any god, that pretty much answers the question of my opinion on the divinity of Jesus. If there is no god, there is no source of divinity for Jesus.

I'm not quite clear on your response. Are you saying it is your belief that you are entirely neutral on the question?

Does the belief in the divinity of Jesus stand alone? Or is that divinity something that comes from god?

The divinity of Jesus would make Jesus a god, but let us say that it is directly connect to the existence of god. How does that impact the question of your neutrality on the question?

 

[WinterBorn]

Just one. I don't believe they exist.

That is not an opinion. We are still at the level of a claim. You may be the exception to my experience. You are saying that on the subject of the divinity of Jesus (just as an example) you are entirely neutral?

That is my belief. And that is at the root of all other opinions regardling religion.

When I say I do not believe in any god, that pretty much answers the question of my opinion on the divinity of Jesus. If there is no god, there is no source of divinity for Jesus.

I'm not quite clear on your response. Are you saying it is your belief that you are entirely neutral on the question?

Does the belief in the divinity of Jesus stand alone? Or is that divinity something that comes from god?

The divinity of Jesus would make Jesus a god, but let us say that it is directly connect to the existence of god. How does that impact the question of your neutrality on the question?

Then I refer back to my original stance. I do not believe in any god.

 

[james bond]

Contraire! Faith in make belief religions is irrational.
Faith in the scientific methods is rational; it leads to technological & knowledge advancements.

Too much "faith-based" science like evolution these days. I studied both evolution and believed in that for several years until I compared it with creation science. The real science is creation science and is based on the scientific method.

Oh yeah. Agnostics are people who need a clue. I just lump them together with atheists.

The “real science is creation science”?
You obviously failed your evolutionary biology class and don’t understand scientific methods, which do NOT put the cart (creation conclusion) before the horse (data collection & objective pattern analysis).

Your post is a total fail. I got A's and B's in my science and chemistry classes and became a computer scientist. I learned evolution from Understanding Evolution and believed in it until around 2007 when articles started coming out questioning evolution. Obviously, you do not understand creation science is what was in place prior to the 1850s when atheist and secular scientists came into power and replaced creation science. Other than being an agnostic, what credentials do you have?

Eventually, I compared what creationists had and theirs is what is observable and is backed up by the scientific method. I would guess you are an unscientific idiot from the conclusions you jump to about me. I claimed "faith-based" science for evolution which leads to fake science. For example, they think the egg came before the chicken.

 

[Frankenvoter]

AGNOSTICISM is about your HONEST perceptions and interpretations of your own experiences. If you cannot see beyond the horizon, you don’t pretend you do.

Of course, you can gather information from credible sources who have seen something beyond YOUR horizon, but that is tentative information that could be a basis for your belief(s).

No one credible to me has ANY information about Earth’s origins. We can only theorize based on patterns of evidence from various credible sources. Beyond that ...

If you are not agnostic, you are playing a make believe game. If so, you have faith in fantasy instead of reality, in my opinion.

If I am honest, I need to tell you about a vision I had from Jesus. That's if you want to hear about it and if you think those things are possible, I was walking around on the dark side of life and missing no opportunity to give God the finger, and he humbled me good (somewhere around the 10,000th time I did it, he has (almost) infinite patience).

I tell people about it at sites like this and generally they don't seem to be swayed if they are already of the mind that they're correct, people like me need analyzed and straightjacketed.

So I don't want to waste the type but I will tell you that people who are agnostic, if they are honest about it, feel that they are the only gods that need worshipped around here thank you very much because THEY got that degree, THEY got that house, THEY earned everything that THEY have, and really dont have anyone to thank but themselves, when they get right down to it.

That's where I was at BTW, and alot of people like to compartmentalize God, "OK, I've put everything in order, I got the place, I got the babe, I got the stuff, NOW I'm gonna go on a search for God, and see if I can find one I can find one I agree with, I."

It was a dark day, one of the darkest of my life. It was the middle of winter it was cold as fuck and I was living in my car, I, was in a car that wouldn't start in the middle of howling cold winter wind feeling quite desperate but I've heard a statement which is true that "the darker it is, the easier it is to see the light".

Your last quote reminds me of another phrase: “I’m so low that everything looks up to me”!

It sounds like you found a way to deal with your low dark side experiences. If so, i’m glad to hear that!
As some say, “Whatever works for you, as long as others don’t get hurt”.
However, others may have different “visions” or thoughts that work for them, and they may be more reflective of objective reality.

"Objective reality", if that works for you that's cool I guess, but that's the main reason I generally don't say much about that issue for the reasons I stated, believers tend to give a hallelugha, while athiests and agnostics give a "yeah right", they're "I gotta see it to beleive it" kind of people and I understand that, I was that way too, and then the humbling from God came, and I saw, I saw.

I generally pray others in that situation get the "proof" they want, but hopefully not as harshly as I had to be humbled but for some that is the only way unfortunatly.

 

[diver52]

That is not an opinion. We are still at the level of a claim. You may be the exception to my experience. You are saying that on the subject of the divinity of Jesus (just as an example) you are entirely neutral?

That is my belief. And that is at the root of all other opinions regardling religion.

When I say I do not believe in any god, that pretty much answers the question of my opinion on the divinity of Jesus. If there is no god, there is no source of divinity for Jesus.

I'm not quite clear on your response. Are you saying it is your belief that you are entirely neutral on the question?

Does the belief in the divinity of Jesus stand alone? Or is that divinity something that comes from god?

The divinity of Jesus would make Jesus a god, but let us say that it is directly connect to the existence of god. How does that impact the question of your neutrality on the question?

Then I refer back to my original stance. I do not believe in any god.

What is the issue with answering my question? Are you or are you not neutral on the question? If you are not, then you do not lack belief since there are zero facts to support any position whether positive or negative. Any opinion is a belief. I am not getting the sense that you are neutral.

As I said before, I have yet to meet anyone who lacked belief. That could well be because anyone who truly did lack beliefs would not be in a discussion on the subject. It would hold no interest for them.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Science is an atheistic pursuit. Period. There is no such thing as theistic science, or creation science. Once the idea of magic enters the picture, the pursuit becomes the OPPOSITE of science.

 

[WinterBorn]

That is my belief. And that is at the root of all other opinions regardling religion.

When I say I do not believe in any god, that pretty much answers the question of my opinion on the divinity of Jesus. If there is no god, there is no source of divinity for Jesus.

I'm not quite clear on your response. Are you saying it is your belief that you are entirely neutral on the question?

Does the belief in the divinity of Jesus stand alone? Or is that divinity something that comes from god?

The divinity of Jesus would make Jesus a god, but let us say that it is directly connect to the existence of god. How does that impact the question of your neutrality on the question?

Then I refer back to my original stance. I do not believe in any god.

What is the issue with answering my question? Are you or are you not neutral on the question? If you are not, then you do not lack belief since there are zero facts to support any position whether positive or negative. Any opinion is a belief. I am not getting the sense that you are neutral.

As I said before, I have yet to meet anyone who lacked belief. That could well be because anyone who truly did lack beliefs would not be in a discussion on the subject. It would hold no interest for them.

My position is based on the fact that I do not believe in any god. Does the question of Jesus' divinity ask whether he is a god? If so, I do not believe in any god. If not, I am still unconcerned with the question.

 

[WinterBorn]

That is my belief. And that is at the root of all other opinions regardling religion.

When I say I do not believe in any god, that pretty much answers the question of my opinion on the divinity of Jesus. If there is no god, there is no source of divinity for Jesus.

I'm not quite clear on your response. Are you saying it is your belief that you are entirely neutral on the question?

Does the belief in the divinity of Jesus stand alone? Or is that divinity something that comes from god?

The divinity of Jesus would make Jesus a god, but let us say that it is directly connect to the existence of god. How does that impact the question of your neutrality on the question?

Then I refer back to my original stance. I do not believe in any god.

What is the issue with answering my question? Are you or are you not neutral on the question? If you are not, then you do not lack belief since there are zero facts to support any position whether positive or negative. Any opinion is a belief. I am not getting the sense that you are neutral.

As I said before, I have yet to meet anyone who lacked belief. That could well be because anyone who truly did lack beliefs would not be in a discussion on the subject. It would hold no interest for them.

I am typically not involved in threads of a theological nature.

But this one caught my attention because the OP has decided that they know my beliefs better than I do.

 

[diver52]

I'm not quite clear on your response. Are you saying it is your belief that you are entirely neutral on the question?

Does the belief in the divinity of Jesus stand alone? Or is that divinity something that comes from god?

The divinity of Jesus would make Jesus a god, but let us say that it is directly connect to the existence of god. How does that impact the question of your neutrality on the question?

Then I refer back to my original stance. I do not believe in any god.

What is the issue with answering my question? Are you or are you not neutral on the question? If you are not, then you do not lack belief since there are zero facts to support any position whether positive or negative. Any opinion is a belief. I am not getting the sense that you are neutral.

As I said before, I have yet to meet anyone who lacked belief. That could well be because anyone who truly did lack beliefs would not be in a discussion on the subject. It would hold no interest for them.

I am typically not involved in threads of a theological nature.

But this one caught my attention because the OP has decided that they know my beliefs better than I do.

You said you didn't have any beliefs. My overall sense is that when you say you do not believe in any god, you are expressing an opinion that there aren't any gods. A perfectly valid position, but a belief nonetheless. To lack belief requires absolute neutrality on the subject and I have yet to meet anyone who is absolutely neutral. Human beings are natural believers.

 

[WinterBorn]

Does the belief in the divinity of Jesus stand alone? Or is that divinity something that comes from god?

The divinity of Jesus would make Jesus a god, but let us say that it is directly connect to the existence of god. How does that impact the question of your neutrality on the question?

Then I refer back to my original stance. I do not believe in any god.

What is the issue with answering my question? Are you or are you not neutral on the question? If you are not, then you do not lack belief since there are zero facts to support any position whether positive or negative. Any opinion is a belief. I am not getting the sense that you are neutral.

As I said before, I have yet to meet anyone who lacked belief. That could well be because anyone who truly did lack beliefs would not be in a discussion on the subject. It would hold no interest for them.

I am typically not involved in threads of a theological nature.

But this one caught my attention because the OP has decided that they know my beliefs better than I do.

You said you didn't have any beliefs. My overall sense is that when you say you do not believe in any god, you are expressing an opinion that there aren't any gods. A perfectly valid position, but a belief nonetheless. To lack belief requires absolute neutrality on the subject and I have yet to meet anyone who is absolutely neutral. Human beings are natural believers.

I do not believe in any god(s). If you want to interpret that as a a belief that there are no gods, I can't stop you. It is semantics and of no value in the topic of this thread.

And no, the lack of belief does not require absolute neutrality on the subject. A Christian believes in the divinity of Jesus. And atheist does not. Whether the atheist believes there is no god or doesn't believe in god, the end result is the same. I don't believe in any deity.

 

[ding]

Science is an atheistic pursuit. Period. There is no such thing as theistic science, or creation science. Once the idea of magic enters the picture, the pursuit becomes the OPPOSITE of science.

Science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to make predictions of nature.

You are the only one invoking or expecting magic.