I was informed just today that "The Truth" = "Well defined yet scantily supported opinion" {SOURCE}

I think that once something has been proven true, there is no requirement to believe it is true.
The word "belief" is [imo] notoriously misused.

Someone who is neither theist or atheist, does not have to concern themselves with belief re the question "Do we exist within a creation" which is the fundamental-claim of theism and the fundamental-rejection of atheism.

I myself, see no logical reason to form beliefs for or against the idea that we exist within a creation. Just stack up what evidence there is and put the pieces together as best one is able.

I also see no logical reason why I should refer to myself as a Agnostic, not only for the reasons mentioned in prior posts in this thread, but also because those who do call themselves agnostics haven't provided such.

I remember on a Christian debate forum, I asked why folk call themselves "Christians" when they also argue that Christianity became infiltrated and corrupted centuries ago.
The replies were all along the lines of there being some need in them to rescue the word "Christian" and somehow help it to gain the true status is deserved.

I say "that ship has sailed".

It is not to say that remaining unbiased either way is not a great way in which to navigate the treacherous encounters with theist/atheist belief systems, but that one needn't trouble oneself with identifying ones position on the matter, apart from making sure one does not fall into the trap of calling ones position 'agnostic' - even with the intent of trying to educate others on its 'true meaning' - because it does not matter. As far as folk are concerned, being an agnostic means you are a weak fence-squatting atheist ...
 
Last edited:
I was informed just today that "The Truth" = "Well defined yet scantily supported opinion" {SOURCE}

I think that once something has been proven true, there is no requirement to believe it is true.
The word "belief" is [imo] notoriously misused.

Someone who is neither theist or atheist, does not have to concern themselves with belief re the question "Do we exist within a creation" which is the fundamental-claim of theism and the fundamental-rejection of atheism.

I myself, see no logical reason to form beliefs for or against the idea that we exist within a creation. Just stack up what evidence there is and put the pieces together as best one is able.

I also see no logical reason why I should refer to myself as a Agnostic, not only for the reasons mentioned in prior posts in this thread, but also because those who do call themselves agnostics haven't provided such.

I remember on a Christian debate forum, I asked why folk call themselves "Christians" when they also argue that Christianity became infiltrated and corrupted centuries ago.
The replies were all along the lines of there being some need in them to rescue the word "Christian" and somehow help it to gain the true status is deserved.

I say "that ship has sailed".

It is not to say that remaining unbiased either way is not a great way in which to navigate the treacherous encounters with theist/atheist belief systems, but that one needn't trouble oneself with identifying ones position on the matter, apart from making sure one does not fall into the trap of calling ones position 'agnostic' - even with the intent of trying to educate others on its 'true meaning' - because it does not matter. As far as folk are concerned, being an agnostic means you are a weak fence-squatting atheist ...
Some do believe agnostics are weak fence-squatting atheists, but that means nothing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AgnosticBoy
Well, that is a completely different claim you are making than before. I 100% disagree--the agnostic position is the closest to scientific and, in my opinion, honest.
Part of William's criticism has to do with what atheists have done to the term "agnosticism". I can agree with him on that although I don't think the term is beyond repair.

I'd really like to see what would happen if us independent agnostics united (w/ much larger numbers of course), and then we pushed for our independence from atheists.

There are some lone agnostics here and there that have explained how agnostics are not atheists, but some times one person is not enough.
 
Last edited:
Part of William's criticism has to do with what atheists have done to the term "agnosticism". I can agree with him on that although I don't think the term is beyond repair.

I'd really like to see what would happen if us independent agnostics united (w/ much larger numbers of course), and then we pushed for our independence from atheists.

There are some lone agnostics here and there that have explained how agnostics are not atheists, but some times one person is not enough.
Thanks for the clarification. I think it is worthwhile to communicate with each other and attempt to unify to repair the term.
 
The position appears to be Liminal;

Liminal [relating to a transitional or initial stage of a process. occupying a position at, or on both sides of, a boundary or threshold.]
Thanks--atheists and theists often commit this fallacy labeling the terms: Atheist, theist, and agnostic--https://www.thoughtco.com/etymological-fallacy-words-1690613 among others: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/fallacies/