ANYTHING is possible, so AGNOSTIC 'wins.'

He called himself an agnostic in front of academic audiences, and an atheist in front of lay audiences, presumably due to his perception that different audiences have different definitions of the word "possible".

'I've come to the position that in the complete absence of any supporting data whatsoever for the persistence of the individual in some spiritual form, it is necessary to operate under the provisional conclusion that there is no afterlife and then be ready to amend that if I find out otherwise.' === agnosticism. unknown or unknowable.

There are these two dimensions to both theism and atheism: knowledge and belief.

I don’t believe in any gods, so I am an atheist. I cannot prove the non existence of any gods, so I do not know with absolute certainty that no gods have ever existed anywhere. So I am an agnostic atheist.

There are also agnostic theists.

(OK, I might make an exception for "apatheist". That lone is clever.)

More of an old-school atheist here, I suppose. But if we're going to talk about agnostic athiests, then I suppose you can call me an atheist atheist, or a Wellstone atheist, that is, I'm in the atheist wing of the atheist party.

It's just my belief. It's not something that I feel obligated to prove, whatever that would mean. I only prove mathematical theorems. I don't even know what it would mean for somebody to prove something outside of mathematics.

And there is nothing "newfangled" about those terms. One is about belief and the other about certainty.

Regularly. I care not one bit what people choose to believe or not. It is none of my business until they attempt to force their beliefs onto me.

Best fit for me.

has always worked best for me.

Atheist and Agnostic are words coined by religious believers to describe those not indoctrinated in religious dogma.

Humanist, or secular humanist are the words we chose to describe our non-belief.

Works for me.

Found this yesterday on Daily Kos.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/3/13/2085101/-Religion-102-Humanism

Humanism is simply an ethical and philosophical viewpoint that sees individuals having the freedom to choose their own values and goals. Humanism emphasizes common human needs and seeks rational ways of solving human problems. In this way, Humanism utilizes scientific methods as well as the fact-based findings of the various sciences.

As an ethical and moral philosophy Humanism carries with it a responsibility for living in a manner that is considerate towards others. A.C. Grayling, in The God Argument: The Case Against Religion and for Humanism, writes:

“As a broad ethical outlook, humanism involves no sectarian divisions or strife, no supernaturalism, no taboos, no food and dress codes, no restrictive sexual morality other than what is implicit in the demand to treat others with respect, consideration and kindness.”

very good long article

It describes humanism far batter than almost anything I've ever come across.

I've subscribed to "Skeptical Inquirer" magazine for many, many years, and 'The Center for Inquiry' their headquarters, is less than an hours drive from my home. Over the years I've been able to hear some of the greatest Humanists in lecture, including Richard Dawkins.

They're a wealth of knowledge and a terrific resource for cutting through the mountains of bullshit piled in front of the truth today.

"Ethical Society". A great one to google.

We can't get people to treat each other humanely, and you want ethics?

I'll check it out when I have time to give it the attention it deserves. Thanks again.

It has one simple property: lack of belief in any gods.

Other than that, it's about nothing.

In any gods. That is all it is.

I may have missed these posts bashing or attacking agnostics but I didn't see one. So please enlighten me with links, comments, etc.

Try answering that. You made a claim that agnostics are being bashed in this group. Can you back that up?

Had someone else posted this, and you're taking exception with it because they agree with this? Or are you displeased with Cameron's views?

You posted something, and now you're angry with something you posted here?

Forgive me, but I don't see what the issue is here. I'd genuinely appreciate it if you could explain how others are attacking agnostics.

Thanks.

It's not mine.

Not angry either. Not sure where you got that idea.

Did you do a lot of acid back in the hippie days?

but you seem to be demanding answers from others about Cameron's views, as to whether it's acceptable in making agnostics' views respected in this forum?

I'm confused about this entire thread. 🤯 Maybe this entire thread is being argued in jest and I'm reading something into this that isn't really there?

Wasn't clear to me that it was noticed.

Like trying to discuss the Golden Fang with Bigfoot.

Thanks, that made me laugh.

And to think I was on a jury for this poster and voted to acquit. If only I had known then.

Try asking which one.

Obviously, the post was OK, given your ruling and the ruling of the other jurors.

I'll try to make sure you aren't bothered with jury duty for my posts in the future.

You did your duty, and you did it well.

Good work!

It was the reason I asked if you did a lot of acid. My typical approach is to vote not no unless it is obviously a violation. It was so bizarre that I let it pass. And it takes a majority for it to be convicted, so there could have been just as many read to convict. They probably thought it was as bizarre as I did. You don't have to worry about me being a juror. I try to be honest in my dealings with other posters. You should try it.

If you find that bizarre, you find that bizarre.

That's not something that I can fix.

while knowing that attributing it to some almighty omnipotent being is just ludicrous, total nonsense