Atheist vs Agnostic

It’s funny isn’t it? My Monkey is asking why don’t all atheists accept that they are really agnostics at heart whereas a while ago you were berating us agnostics for being atheists in denial I didn’t get a chance to answer you properly last time (Shraf raised most of the points that I wanted to, and I didn’t get my arse into gear to give a proper clarification), so I hope you don’t mind me explaining my position here, as you seem to be asking the same kind of questions .IMO it’s all to do balancing up the evidence and trying to personally assess the possibility of things happening:

I am for all intents and purposes an atheist(here comes the but) ButAll of these positions are based on weighing up the evidence and coming to a conclusion, but always leaving the door ajar for the possibility of new evidence that would change my mind (in some cases it would have to be nothing short of a white-bearded man-of-the clouds smiting me with holy fire). The possibility of God's or God-like entities can't be ruled out entirely, if only to ensure that I do not fall into the trap of being dogmatic about knowledge.By designating myself an agnostic, I directly acknowledge the tentativeness of my position. My own personal definition of an atheist is one who declares There is no God. This seems just as absolutist a position as There is a God, and I’ve made the decision not to subscribe to it. Practically it makes little or no difference, but it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling so I guess that makes it alright *Although Dan’s Lemurism deserves further investigation

Although you probably have it set up that all messages that get posted in this thread generate an e-mail notification for you I was actually replying to CF. As I said I while ago he laid into me (in a good natured way of course ) for describing myself as an agnostic - I can dig up the thread if you want.Having said that I hope some of my post was relavent to your enquiry (especially when trying to define the different terms involved).The whole question of leaving room for doubt is I an aspect of the faith debate that does interest me quite a bit, and IMO is at the core many of the other issues raised at EvC- but I'm a bit busy this afternoon so I'll get back to you later, if that's OK.

Hello again (well...later can mean next day can'y it )I’d better be careful here, I get the feeling that I could stray into a couple of unrelated topics all too easily.Although I try and avoid over-use of analogies, I’d like to try and expand on the "leaving the door open" thing a bit:Not every door is equal — some are more open than others. How draughty each ‘door’ gets is directly related to the amount of evidence that I see to support it. My evolution door is wide open, whereas my door to a literal Christian God is almost entirely closed.In science the amount of supporting evidence a theory has defines how established it is and how confident we are of basing ideas and actions upon on it. I believe the same principle can be applied to faith based actions.For example, you mention parallel universes in another post. I don’t fully understand the latest developments in String theory (or M-theory or whatever they are calling it nowadays), but I’m fairly certain that people aren’t building spaceships based on those calculations. Many people of faith on the other hand are basing their attitudes and actions on something, which to me is even less tangible than theoretical physics, and (as demonstrated by the EvC debate) this has very real consequences.So, to sum up my thoughts on this comment: it’s a weight of evidence thing. I still accept the possibility of a 'God' existing in some form but he's got a lot of work to do to tip the balance, and I start acting on it.

Ah! There's the thing that probably defines my stand-point.Where do Christians get their idea of what God is like? The Bible, right?People may have had some kind of spiritual experience to set it all off, but the definition of what God is and what he condemns or condones comes from a written text like the Koran or the Bible, surely? What is a religious text if it isn't a device for communication in the physical world, and why can't I examine it and its' authenicity using similar principles?The question that agnostics, from the wishy-washy undecided, to the copper-bottomed "I don't care where I get splinters!" type, all have asked and come up negative is :"Can I really trust this book to tell me how to live?"I hope this clarifies things a bit, and doesn't drag the topic too far off target. I've just noticed that I've asked an awful lot of questions in this post (a sure fire way of telling that I need some sleep), so I think I'll turn in. Ta ta!

No need to explain. In order for me to think that you are accusing me of ignorance you will have to literally shout DON’T YOU KNOW ANYTHING!!. As it stood you did a good job of presenting a different POV. This I think is an accurate assessment of the difference in attitudes, and probably the reason I normally don’t last that many posts on the rare occasions that I when I venture onto the Faith and Belief forum (this thread is probably a record). It normally quickly boils down to Fair enough, I can’t accept Faith, you can. See you around! There is one thing that I do want pick up on though. I’ll say something about it here, but in order to prevent the thread turning into Ooook!’s Manefesto, I’ll not say anything more here. If it’s something you want to discuss further, give us a shout and I’ll be happy to start up a new topic (or be directed to a pre-existing one). Fair enough, I can’t accept Faith, you canbutthere is something that keeps my interest in (what I perceive as ) Faith vs evidence debates (like EvC) alive. If certain judgements are being made on the back of an unobservable spiritual feeling that ‘the’ book is correct, then surely you have to be rock-solid certain about acting on them.There is again, I believe, a sliding scale on such actions. The Christian ‘Golden Rule’ or the Islamic ideal of charity for example don’t have any bad implications for other people that I can think of, and don’t actually require a belief in Jesus or the Koran for people to follow them — if people want to credit a spiritual experience for that kind of thing I won’t kick up a fuss at all.However: if people want to act on something written in a holy book like a perceived condemnation of homosexuality, a dangerous apocalypse account, or a creation myth that undermines scientific integrity, then the question that begs to be answered is How sure are you?. Certain actions that are sometimes carried out in the name of God leave me to think I could never be that sure!

Hi Phat,I’m feeling a bit bored this week, and in need of a bit of debate (there’s not too many lively Biological Evo or ID topics), so I thought I’d give you a bit of a polite bump to see if you’d finished chewing and decided what aspects of my position you wanted to discuss.Unless, of course you’re bored already? It’s either that or I’m gonna have to start a topic in the coffee room about how boring American sports are, and I’m not entirely sure my E-mail inbox could take that amount of flaming.Oh, and incidentally — the quote you attributed to me in the last post was actually from MyMonkey. I mean, I know there’s not too much difference between us and the great apes but I'm not entirely sure MMs going to be too happy that you muddled an orangutan with a baby - with them being related .