Taking the Proactive Approach. : Greetings Agnostics.

Turtwig

As an agnostic, I feel obliged to point out my love of this forum. I will define what I mean by agnostic in a second but first of all I'd like to explain my reasoning for starting this thread. Recently, there has been flurry of debate over whether there should be a separate agnostics thread along with the current Atheist and Agnostic thread. The thread which exists on the forum requests thread is riddled with a discussion about the definitions of agnosticism and atheism. In fact one of the proponents of the new forum has requested the charter include a definition of what atheism and agnosticism actually are. Some may feel the following generalisation is an unfair one so I apologise in advance for any offence caused.

To my mind, there are two interpretations of atheism in conflict here. One is that atheists claim there is no God; the other is that they doubt if there is a God. Both sides seem to agree that being agnostic means you don't know one way or the other. So at least they both have that in common. Depending on who I speak to, if I identify as agnostic that is clearly understood what I mean, but if I identify as an atheist one group takes it to mean one thing and another group takes it to mean something almost entirely different. Here is the thing though, it only takes me about 30 extra words to clarify which type of atheist I am. Surely that should suffice, is it really necessary to wring something into the pedantry of the definitions when we're not publishing in a Philosophy journal (in which case you'd define your definition anyway)? Great, you've understood what person believes let them call themselves a 12gtoadcbni2678ds;+2346 for all I care, as long as you recognise exactly what they mean by that string of characters. Be proactive, seriously, the definition of the atheist or agnostic has so little relevance to just about every discussion that goes on here. And, as we all know words can change meaning, who knows in 100 years time atheist may also be a synonym for happy and ecstatic!?:) That would be so gay! Happily, the concepts always remain the same.

The second point I'd like to make to our lurkers (if, indeed they even lurk here) is that it should really go without saying that the most frequent posters here tend to be most passionate. There are some exceptions of course. It shouldn't really be any surprise to see some threads here littered tones of cynicism. There are some folks here who are convinced to the hills that God is bullsh1t. Others are not sure, and it is that latter group which I would like to stress, they might not post as frequently in a given thread but they are still part of the community of posters here and on the more serious (read less repetitively tedious well-worn grounds threads) you should notice that their contributions are far more frequent. Yes this forum has its cynics and naysayers but it also has its critics and skeptics. Any forum which promotes the protection of viewpoints from skepticism is in my opinion a very dangerous one. My heart really hopes that if the agnosticism is granted that it doesn't turn out to be a simple one of those, tolerate all, question politely, but don't ask this question type thread. I guess at this point, though I don't post there as much now, heck I don't even post in A&A as much now, I should thank the Christianity forum for their hospitality in taking on questions and queries. I guess what I'm really trying to say, is please Jesus and Allah don't take on the same guise as the current Islamic forum has now. If you do get the forum I wish you all the best with it, but expect several posts casting a more critical eye on a person's beliefs. An agnosticism forum geared towards credulity can only be a bad thing in my opinion.

tl;dr Whether you spell yourself as an agnostic or atheist or some other arrangement of letters is utterly irrelevant. What is important is that people have a clear conceptual understanding of what it is you do and don't believe in. The discussion between what definition separates an agnostic and an atheist is purely semantics and somewhat trivial to the grander scheme of discussion in the forum.

Finally, I'm attaching a poll to quantify this conceptual understanding so regardless of label we know where the majority of atheist and agnostics on this forum actually lie in their beliefs.

Michael Nugent

Malty_T wrote: »

tl;dr Whether you spell yourself as an agnostic or atheist or some other arrangement of letters is utterly irrelevant. What is important is that people have a clear conceptual understanding of what it is you do and don't believe in. The discussion between what definition separates an agnostic and an atheist is purely semantics and somewhat trivial to the grander scheme of discussion in the forum.

That's a very good point. I sometimes think it would be an interesting exercise to have a debate about religion and atheism in which none of the words god, religion, theist, agnostic, atheist etc are used and where people have to replace those words with descriptions of what they actually mean by the word.

Malty_T wrote: »

Finally, I'm attaching a poll to quantify this conceptual understanding so regardless of label we know where the majority of atheist and agnostics on this forum actually lie in their beliefs.

I like the idea of such a poll, but I think the two options are too restrictive. Neither of them allow me to give a clear conceptual understanding of what I do and don't believe in.

I would like to see at least these options and possibly more!

I am certain that there are no gods of any kind.
I am certain that God, Allah and similar gods do not exist, and I am nearly certain that there are no gods of any kind.
I am nearly certain that that there are no gods of any kind.
I am nearly certain that God, Allah and similar gods do not exist, and on balance I believe there are no gods of any kind.
On balance I believe there are no gods of any kind.

Edit: If forced to choose between the two options, I would say there is no god. That is based on applying the same standards of proof to the assertion as I do to all other assertions using day-to-day language. Strictly speaking there might be a god but the chances are so infinitesimally small that it would be technically correct but misleading for me to say that was my belief.

liamw

There might be a God!

In layman's terms I would say 'There is no God'. I would classify myself as agnostic atheist, but only becuase it is logically incorrect to say gnostic athiest.

In general conversation now I simply say 'non-religious'. I find that the general public percieve athiesm as having certain undertones and I get sick and tired of trying to explain how it's the same thing over and over.

swampgas

There might be a God!

liamw wrote: »

In layman's terms I would say 'There is no God'. I would classify myself as agnostic atheist, but only becuase it is logically incorrect to say gnostic athiest.

In general conversation now I simply say 'non-religious'. I find that the general public percieve athiesm as having certain undertones and I get sick and tired of trying to explain how it's the same thing over and over.

Ditto - I use "non-religious" quite a bit myself. Although I'd be hard pushed to define it!

Michael Nugent

To follow on from my earlier comment about applying the same standard of proof to the 'There is a god' question as we do to other assertions about reality, the two options above are like asking to choose between:

A. Wexford Youths FC will not win the 2013 European Champions League.
B. Wexford Youths FC might win the 2013 European Champions League.

Option A is technically unprovable at the moment, and option B is technically correct, but in ordinary day-to-day conversation most people would be perfectly comfortable asserting option A, and would think it was eccentric to say the least for someone to seriously assert option B.

liamw

There might be a God!

swampgas wrote: »

Ditto - I use "non-religious" quite a bit myself. Although I'd be hard pushed to define it!

I simply define it as rejecting/not buying religious claims.

looksee

Define God.

Rev Hellfire

I must admit my first opinion on the poll was like that of Michael, that at two polar views it was to narrow.

But on reflection expanding it would be a mistake, restricting the options means people are more likely to pick what they really think.

That said I'd happily declare myself an athiest with respect to God defined in the typical anthropomorphic definition.

Dades

I think Malty's flawed poll represents the flawed idea of what atheism is to agnosticism as put forward by the proponents of this new forum. Therefore it is oddly useful.

As an agnostic atheist I have no option but the check the "might be a god" box, as it is the less wrong answer. Perhaps if enough people do this we can show how agnostic the posters in this forum actually are.

MagicMarker

I'd have to go with option 2 but I wouldn't quite phrase it like that.

liamw

There might be a God!

Dades wrote: »

As an agnostic atheist I have no option but the check the "might be a god" box, as it is the less wrong answer. Perhaps if enough people do this we can show how agnostic the posters in this forum actually are.

I'm agnostic atheist and I checked the first box. See that's the problem.

bnt

To me it comes down to the difference between abstract philosophy on the one hand, and daily reality on the other.

Philosophically: sure, I'm not going to try to "prove a negative", and I know that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". So of course I'm not going to claim that there are definitely no gods, and I'm open to the theoretical possibility that there are gods. Call me an "agnostic atheist" if you want. There are plenty of us on this forum and elsewhere.

What theists seem to fail to grasp, however is that that does not mean that I have a god-shaped hole in my life that needs to be filled with one of their specific versions of "God". Even if there's anything god-like out there, it's ... somewhere else. It's not here, and it doesn't have any impact on me. It may as well not exist, for all the good it does. So when it comes to how I think, to deciding what to do and say, gods and religion play no part. I think and act as if there are no gods, even if I don't need to actively "believe" that there are no gods.

I don't think the definitions are trivial, especially when it comes to "agnostic". Far too often I see it used to mean "I don't know" whether gods exist; which is misleading, since you'll struggle to find an atheist who says he/she does know. (Absence of belief is not a belief in absence!) The original, correct definition of an "agnostic" is someone who thinks that the question can't be answered, positively or negatively.

tl;dr: Focusing on the question of a god's mere existence is missing the bigger point. I don't really care whether anything exists or not; I care about the impact that it has on me. It's a big universe, containing stranger things than we can imagine, but if something has no measurable impact on us, there's no point worrying about it. Every religious claim I've heard falls in to that category: all the claimed gods are "elsewhere", not here.

mickoneill30

My opinion is


Its really really really really really unlikely there is a god but I don't know everything (yet) so there might be one or more, so I voted B.

Mistress 69

Michael Nugent wrote: »

To follow on from my earlier comment about applying the same standard of proof to the 'There is a god' question as we do to other assertions about reality, the two options above are like asking to choose between:

A. Wexford Youths FC will not win the 2013 European Champions League.
B. Wexford Youths FC might win the 2013 European Champions League.

Option A is technically unprovable at the moment, and option B is technically correct, but in ordinary day-to-day conversation most people would be perfectly comfortable asserting option A, and would think it was eccentric to say the least for someone to seriously assert option B.

Beatles or Stones... What about Alice Cooper or Culture Club, Other than WRFC Under 9's are the best ... Who Really Gives A tOss?
Well... Nearly doeS iT anWaysuP

Turtwig

Dades wrote: »

I think Malty's flawed poll represents the flawed idea of what atheism is to agnosticism as put forward by the proponents of this new forum. Therefore it is oddly useful.

As an agnostic atheist I have no option but the check the "might be a god" box, as it is the less wrong answer. Perhaps if enough people do this we can show how agnostic the posters in this forum actually are.

Nail meet head.:)

Yep I realise the poll options are a little blunt and won't fully capture people's actual beliefs but that's wasn't the point of the poll.

nozzferrahhtoo

I too would be forced in such a poll to go with the second option but the phrasing is pretty bad. The reason is that although I would not express 100% certainty on any subject and so could not in good conscience use the first option… the second option is phrased in such a way as to suggest that the idea there is a god hold any credibility at all.

It does not.

Take a different poll. Imagine I told you that later today a pink VW microbus with green pokka dots would materialize above your head, fall upon you and kill you. And I gave you the two options “It will 100% not happen” and “It might happen”.

You can not know 100%. However there still is no reason whatsoever, even minutely, to consider the possibility that it will happen. It is clearly something I just made up out of nowhere, based on nothing, for which there is literally no reason to think is true.

I would be happier with a poll that said “There is no God” and “There is no reason whatsoever to think there IS a god”. I would happily click option 2 in this case.

All of my post of course ignores that fact that we are not defining god, or which god. I would be happier ticking option 1 if you mean specifically the Christian God of the Bible than I would be ticking, say, "No nonhuman intelligence of any kind responsible for the creation and / or maintenance of our universe".

Penn

There might be a God!

Yeah, I felt the same. But the way I see it if those are the two options, I'd have to go with There is no God, purely for the fact that it is what I believe. My answer is not definitive, just how I feel at this moment in time. While something may happen in 20 years to suggest there actually might be a god, I could change my answer then. But for now, I don't believe there is a god.

sipstrassi

There might be a God!

I am having difficulty with the two options.
At first glance I would have gone for the second as I am prepared to accept (absolute and verifiable!) proof of a divine being.
However, I absolutely deny the possibility that the god I was brought up with exists (because he can't - you can't be a loving parent figure while burning your child in the pits of hell without hope of redemption. Too many contradictions.)

So don't know which option applies to me.

sipstrassi

sipstrassi wrote: »

However, I absolutely deny the possibility that the god I was brought up with exists (because he can't - you can't be a loving parent figure while burning your child in the pits of hell without hope of redemption. Too many contradictions.)

So don't know which option applies to me.

"A god may exist" doesn't mean "the god I brought up with may exist".

Rev Hellfire

sipstrassi wrote: »

So don't know which option applies to me.

Then pick the one you think most reasonable.
If you don't believe a god (in any form) exists then its option (a) for you. While if you believe there is a reasonable possibility that a god could exist, then option (b) is for you.

If the likelihood is negligible you may as well discount it.

MagicMarker

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Then pick the one you think most reasonable.
If you don't believe a god (in any form) exists then its option (a) for you. While if you believe there is a reasonable possibility that a god could exist, then option (b) is for you.

If the likelihood is negligible you may as well discount it.

The problem occurs when people have both beliefs.

I don't believe in a god but I also accept the possibility that a god may exist.

mickoneill30

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

While if you believe there is a reasonable possibility that a god could exist, then option (b) is for you.

I don't believe in a god so A is not good but I also don't believe that there's a reasonable possibility that a god could exist.

I do believe there are many things possible that I have no understanding of. So a god or gods could fit into that category no matter how unlikely. So I chose B.

Rev Hellfire

MagicMarker wrote: »

The problem occurs when people have both beliefs.

I don't believe in a god but I also accept the possibility that a god may exist.

True, but I think you can evaluate the strength of your belief a god might exist and from that take an absolute stance.

sipstrassi

There might be a God!

bluewolf wrote: »

"A god may exist" doesn't mean "the god I brought up with may exist".

Agree.

If the options were:
1. There are no gods
2. I don't know if there are gods

I could go with 2.

The capital G and the singular read to me like a particular version of a deity.

(I have been called pedantic!! but I am trying for an honest answer)

sipstrassi

sipstrassi wrote: »

The capital G and the singular read to me like a particular version of a deity.

I would agree except he put in the "a" instead of "God may exist"

Malari

There might be a God!

I voted "there is no god", even though I think more specifically "there is no god as anyone on earth has described him thusly far".

I don't really entertain the possibility that there "might" be a god, as I think the possibility is so vanishingly small as to be unimportant to me.

sipstrassi

There might be a God!

bluewolf wrote: »

I would agree except he put in the "a" instead of "God may exist"

The poll* is flawed then because it is only presenting the option of 'a God', one of.

Plus 'there might be a god' is I think a stronger statement than most would associate themselves with.

Can't pick 1. because I don't know everything (don't tell my kids!).
Can't pick 2. because it doesn't reflect how I feel.

*I like the poll, it's got me thinking

Newaglish

I voted option 2, but I'm uncomfortable with the phrasing. There might be a god, equally I might also evolve wings in the morning and fly to work. It would be ridiculous for anyone to definitively say "There is no god", that being said I don't really think there is.

I can categorically say that the God referred to in any religion I've read about is complete horseshit though.

Newaglish

Mistress 69 wrote: »

Beatles or Stones... What about Alice Cooper or Culture Club, Other than WRFC Under 9's are the best ... Who Really Gives A tOss?
Well... Nearly doeS iT anWaysuP

How's the hangover??

Daftendirekt

I went for option B, although I think I could've chosen the first option as well.

While in everyday conversation, I wouldn't have a problem with saying "There is no god", my actual position is less certain. And while the second option allows for that, I'd prefer for it to be worded as "There probably isn't a god".

Also, it's kind of a vague question without specifying what you mean by "god". I'd be more inclined to choose A if you were talking about Zeus/Allah/Thor/<Insert Popular Anthropomorphic Deity Here>, but lean more towards B if you're talking about a more vague and impersonal, Deistic-type deity. I chose B to allow for that.

nozzferrahhtoo

Michael Nugent wrote: »

That's a very good point. I sometimes think it would be an interesting exercise to have a debate about religion and atheism in which none of the words god, religion, theist, agnostic, atheist etc are used and where people have to replace those words with descriptions of what they actually mean by the word.

I normally attempt to do just that. In conversation with "believers" the question I usually ask makes a point of not using the word god at all because I it is usually true that what I mean by that word ends up being different to what they mean by it.

As standard the question I usually ask them therefore is: "Have you any arguments, data, reasons or evidence to lend the idea that a non-human intelligence exists and is responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe any credence whatsoever?".

18+ years asking and I can accurately report the answer I have personally received to date to be a 100% consistent "no".

Panrich

There might be a God!

I chose A based on the fact that there has never been any evidence produced of 'a god or God' and therefore by ignoring all the fairy stories and cultural history of belief in various deities it is easy to choose this option. To me personally, it is simply a question on the same level as there are no unicorns.

b318isp

When balance of probabilities or reasonableness come into account, such black and white options of the poll tend to polarise what is a complex question.

My first instinct was to click option 1, however I am not closed to the idea of a cosmological god if there was clear evidence to support it. So, I then wanted to click option 2; BUT, I don't believe there is a knowable/credible god at this point in human understanding - so I'm stuck in limbo between both options.

Beruthiel

There might be a God!

There is no god.
If there is a omnipotent being out there in the universe with awesome, inconceivable powers, that doesn't mean he's a god, it just means we are worms on the evolutionary scale of things and have no understanding of that very evolved alien.

mickoneill30

Beruthiel wrote: »

There is no god.
If there is a omnipotent being out there in the universe with awesome, inconceivable powers, that doesn't mean he's a god, it just means we are worms on the evolutionary scale of things and have no understanding of that very evolved alien.

If there was an omnipotent, supreme being out there that created the universe would that be a god?
I really don't think there is one either but I don't know everything.

dmw07

There might be a God!

I've picked no 1 but i could have picked either option really. Option 1 was just more factual and I based my final decision on something tangible rather than a want or a wish or an opinion.

"there are two interpretations of atheism in conflict here"

That is the problem with labels. And why i don't subscribe to them so seriously. They usually get bastardized over time by people with agendas.

MrPudding

There might be a God!

So I went, somewhat reluctantly, for 1. I could have gone for 2, bit there would have been even more reluctance. I am actually open to the possibility that there is a god, but as others have said, I think the chance of a god existing is so slim that it is simply not worth considering.

Richard Dawkins mentions a scale of believers somewhere, I like that scale can't remember sure it is bit if no one has found it. U the time I vet home I will look it up. I am sure many of you are familiar with it. It goes from 1 absolute belief in a deity to 7 absolute belief there is no such thing. I am a 6 on that scale.

MrP

Liamario

I consider myself to be atheist. I believe in science, in logical and in cold hard facts.
As of right now, I don't believe in a god. There is no proof of its existence and I get embarassed thinking about how people I know believing in a 'God'. There is no magical man in the clouds watching over us. If you're feeling a little empy inside and you decide to fill that with some mystical leprechaun type being, you are kidding yourself.

The universe is an amazing place, which we know very little about. In fact, I would go as far as to say that what very little we know of the universe is far more interesting and exciting than what any heaven can offer you. Embrace the world around you and embrace the people within it, because your life will come to an end; don't waste it praying to an invisible man.

On saying that, we do know very little about the universe and science most definitely does not answer it all and probably never will.This is why I can't honestly say that there isn't some sort of being which created the universe. I'm not talking about a man with a beard who farts rainbows and grants wishes. I'm talking about something that maybe we couldn't possibly comprehend. Something that has as much of an interest in us as I do in going to mass (-9000 interest points).
There are theories about, time travel, worm holes, parallel universes and all sorts of ideas on quantum physics. What I'm saying is, is that we don't know anything.

Until someone presents me with physical evidence on the existence of a god, I'm not going to believe in one. But should the a**hole show up on my doorstep, I'll be quite happy to acknowledge him (still not going to pray to him though).

HUNK

MrPudding wrote: »

So I went, somewhat reluctantly, for 1. I could have gone for 2, bit there would have been even more reluctance. I am actually open to the possibility that there is a god, but as others have said, I think the chance of a god existing is so slim that it is simply not worth considering.

Richard Dawkins mentions a scale of believers somewhere, I like that scale can't remember sure it is bit if no one has found it. U the time I vet home I will look it up. I am sure many of you are familiar with it. It goes from 1 absolute belief in a deity to 7 absolute belief there is no such thing. I am a 6 on that scale.

MrP

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

Beruthiel

There might be a God!

mickoneill30 wrote: »

If there was an omnipotent, supreme being out there that created the universe would that be a god?

Liamario

Funnily enough, in my previous post, I was thinking about star trek, but not Q.
We don't know what's out there, so to say that there definitely isn't a being, that had some influence on what we know as the universe, is a little premature.
But in the mean time, there is no magical creator.

recedite

Neither option is good enough to get my vote. A bit like the presidential candidates, then.

Doc_Savage

There might be a God!

when you black and white the pole like that i think some interesting choices are forced on the voters... the results are not what i was expecting so far!

Beruthiel

There might be a God!

Liamario wrote: »

We don't know what's out there, so to say that there definitely isn't a being, that had some influence on what we know as the universe, is a little premature.

The way I see it, the universe is vast. We cannot be the only ones to have evolved in it.
No doubt there are other beings out there. Some more advanced than us, some not.
Some maybe so advanced that they would appear to be omnipotent. Doesn't make them a god though.

sipstrassi

There might be a God!

I stopped trying to figure out what I really think and went back to what I know.

Based on a common rule of thumb in statistics, if the probability is less than 0.001 then there is strong evidence against the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis here is that there is a god. I think based on the lack of any evidence to the contrary, the probability is waaaaaayyyyy smaller than 0.001 so I'm rejecting the hypothesis. And choosing option 1.

Penn

There might be a God!

HUNK wrote: »

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

In that case, I'd see Option A as being '7.Strong Atheist' and Option B as being '4.Pure Agnostic'. In which case, I'd be at least a 6, but probably closer to 7.

gramlab

HUNK wrote: »

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

I'd see myself as a 5.5 on this list but couldn't make a choice from the poll. I think it's the word "god" putting me off. I wouldn't be a definitely not but would be more than mabye not.

Improbable

There might be a God!

Voted before I could read the post entirely.

HUNK wrote: »

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

On that scale, I would have to class myself a 6. I think having atheism/theism on one axis of a graph and gnostic/agnostic on the other axis is the best way of representing it that I've ever seen and on there, I would class myself as an agnostic atheist. On the poll, I would have to say that I fall under the category of "There might be a God!", though I dislike the wording. I don't believe there is a god, but, as always, I am open to the idea that I may one day be proven wrong if presented with the evidence. In the meantime, I am quite happy to live my life as if there is no god.

Liamario

Beruthiel wrote: »

The way I see it, the universe is vast. We cannot be the only ones to have evolved in it.
No doubt there are other beings out there. Some more advanced than us, some not.
Some maybe so advanced that they would appear to be omnipotent. Doesn't make them a god though.

You've managed to articulate what I couldn't. I sincerely don't believe in an omnipotent being and as you said, there may be something out there that could be perceived to be all powerful.
When we die, the only person we have to answer to is ourselves

Improbable

There might be a God!

Beruthiel wrote: »

The way I see it, the universe is vast. We cannot be the only ones to have evolved in it.
No doubt there are other beings out there. Some more advanced than us, some not.
Some maybe so advanced that they would appear to be omnipotent. Doesn't make them a god though.

I think for the sake of letting people know what most of us are like in here, we can say that god is an entity which exists outside nature. I agree that there are no doubt other lifeforms out there in the universe. And as Clarke said, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Indeed, even if an organism evolved to such a point that we would consider it "god-like", that would not make it a "god". It's important in any discussion to define how you're using particular terms, but I think in a discussion about the difference between atheism and agnosticism, we can use the default definition if you will.

Panrich

There might be a God!

HUNK wrote: »

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

I see 6 options in a huddle and option 7 on it's own in the corner for some reason. There seems to be a big leap from 6 to 7 ideallogically.