The agnostic is not just interested in whether there is a way to know we are created or not, but if any God(s) exist.

That is the difference between agnostics and Liminalists.

Limimalists are not interested in addressing the second question until the first question has been answered.
There are a few religions with no deities, and others with God deities that are not creators
People who don't believe that there is a creator and don't believe we exist within a creation, are not 'theists'.
 
That is the difference between agnostics and Liminalists.

Limimalists are not interested in addressing the second question until the first question has been answered.

People who don't believe that there is a creator and don't believe we exist within a creation, are not 'theists'.

Wesleyan Methodists believe in evolution, an old Universe/Earth, even though they do believe in creation.I know theist ministers who do not believe in creation.

Pantheists do not believe in a creator, and yet, atheists tend to put them in the same category as theists or "sexy atheism," as Dawkins claimed.

.
 
Wesleyan Methodists believe in evolution, an old Universe/Earth, even though they do believe in creation.I know theist ministers who do not believe in creation.

Pantheists do not believe in a creator, and yet, atheists tend to put them in the same category as theists or "sexy atheism," as Dawkins claimed.

.
It doesn't matter to a Liminist what Wesleyan Methodists believe...Liminists understand Theism as

"belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe."


If, Pantheists do not believe in a creator then they are not theists.
 
Sorry fellas. Some of the points offered here could be looked at as a way to avoid atheism at all costs. If I don't tell you that then an atheist surely would. None of the points here avoids weak atheism or lack of belief so any position you could offer on the God question would fall into theism or weak atheism at some point. The only exception is if you KNOW God doesn't exist or that he does. Only knowledge precludes belief and that would even cover the point about lack of belief. You could also say that "maybe" God exist and maybe he doesn't.

Simply avoiding the question of if God exists, in place of another question, existing in creation, is not convincing enough for me. One doesn't make the other unnecessary or moot, unless you know the answers to both. And I've read through this thread at least twice.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't matter as atheism is a direct reaction against theism. Theism concerns itself with the question of GOD as primary whereas the question of creation is the actual primary.

Therefore, your concerns only matter to an agnostic, but not to a Liminalist. "Avoiding atheism" under the circumstances is acceptable, due to its reactionary position to theism - and theism being a false position in the first place, and so worth avoiding as well.
 
It doesn't matter to a Liminist what Wesleyan Methodists believe...Liminists understand Theism as

"belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe."


If, Pantheists do not believe in a creator then they are not theists.
I think liminist is an improper term. Of course it matters what Methodists believe to agnostics anyways.
 
So we have perplexedzeromass who is unwilling to drop the agnostic label.

William seems ready to drop the agnostic label in favor of something else.

I'm unwilling to drop the agnostic label. One reason is that I am too much in favor of what Huxley had to say about agnosticism. For me to accept his explanations and apply it in debates and in searching for truth, and then throw another label on it would almost feel like I'm not giving him his credit. If it takes a lifetime trying to convince atheists that I won't identify as an "agnostic atheist" then so be it. I presume others will follow, although I would say that others (non-atheists) tend to perceive agnostics more positively than atheists. That's a start!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: perplexedzeromass
So we have perpsecedzeromass who is unwilling to drop the agnostic label.

William seems ready to drop the agnostic label in favor of something else.

I'm unwilling to drop the agnostic label. One reason I have not brought up is that I am too much in favor of what Huxley had to say about agnosticism. For me to accept his explanations and apply it in debates and in searching for truth, but yet throw another label on it, would almost feel like I'm not giving him his credit. If it takes a lifetime trying to convince atheists that I won't identify as an "agnostic atheist" then so be it. I presume others will follow, although I would say that others (non-atheists) tend to perceive agnostics more positively than atheists, so that's a start!
Good points. Also besides Huxley there are other developers of agnostic thought who demonstrate its own identity. I'll link to them soon