Neither a theist nor an atheist

I suppose the words in some dictionary allow reaching this conclusion about the term agnostic, but of course this usage is wrong. An agnostic is someone who believes that the answer to whether or not God exists is not answerable given the information at hand. An agnostic is not the proper term for everyone who has some level of uncertainty about the question.I'm not an agnostic by any reasonable definition, and neither are Faith, marc9000 or Phat.

The difference between the two terms is that your mom won't make you sit in the corner when you say "poo". Whatever positive or negative qualities poo has are the same when we call it caca, number 2, or anything else.I think even less of your example using the "n" word. So I'll leave that one alone.What is the purpose for finding a middle ground between atheism or theism? Do you think finding a middle ground is the way to get along with both groups?

And my point is that their belief alone, whether well supported or unfounded, is enough to disqualify them as agnostic.

uh.Edited by NoNukes, : Want to stay out of this...

Just based on a belief that God definitely exists, however that belief is obtained, can locate you in quadrant II. So I'm not sure I understand your point. In which quadrant would you estimate that Faith belongs?In contrast, I take ringo's statement as meaning that no one can legitimately be in quadrants I or II. Does that possibility seem correct to you?

duplicateEdited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

That's pretty much my take on it too. I knew we could agree about something.

That would make you either agnostic or atheist rather than them.

That's quite unlike what is said in Hebrews 11:1. Which says that Faith is evidence. Elsewhere in the Bible we are told what the source of faith is. And that source is not evidence.