I is things you said; it also what others claim that you alluded to.
One line replies don't do it for me as I have to then ask for clarification. Why not save me the effort and just post accompanying explanations to your statements.

That way I can better tell whether or not you are hearing me.

Cheers

W
 
One line replies don't do it for me as I have to then ask for clarification. Why not save me the effort and just post accompanying explanations to your statements.

That way I can better tell whether or not you are hearing me.

Cheers

W
I did in my initial reply sir; please read again.
 
Whatever.
Ok. Your reply shows me at least in this thread you are not serious about having this conversation with me. I'll digress, but this had so much promise. I was enjoying your other posts. I respect you, but to be clear, whatever is a conversation stopper as it had no meaningful information. I addressed your words specifically.
 
Natural Neutral: I don't know and refuse to form belief or lack of belief as belief or non-belief provides me with no compelling answer.
So far, I see a problem in your view. You can not form a lack of belief just as you can not form nothing (Lack = nothing or absence).
Perhaps the problem is just with the word "form". I see nothing wrong with saying someone actively (or chooses to) withholds judgement after being confronted with information. That would be synonymous with lacking a belief in terms of whether something exists or not.

However, the only person that has the luxury of being identified as a "natural-neutral" is a baby or someone who has not encountered the God concept. This is because they are ignorant of the concept and are not suspending judgement. To suspend requires choice, especially when it comes to maintaining it. So the difference between a weak atheist and a baby is the latter doesn't choose to lack belief.

Getting back to how this relates to agnosticism, I also think the "lack of belief" point presents a problem to the agnostics that do not identify with the atheist and theist label. I have my own solutions, like when someone doesn't know what they believe perhaps they haven't made up their mind because they have conflicting beliefs. William brings up "maybe" God exists and maybe not, and that can be used by an independent agnostic, as well.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: perplexedzeromass
So far, I see a problem in your view. You can not form a lack of belief just as you can not form nothing (Lack = nothing or absence).
Perhaps the problem is just with the word "form". I see nothing wrong with saying someone actively (or chooses to) withholds judgement after being confronted with information. That would be synonymous with lacking a belief in terms of whether something exists or not.

However, the only person that has the luxury of being identified as a "natural-neutral" is a baby or someone who has not encountered the God concept. This is because they are ignorant of the concept and are not suspending judgement. To suspend requires choice, especially when it comes to maintaining it. So the difference between a weak atheist and a baby is the latter doesn't choose to lack belief.

Getting back to how this relates to agnosticism, I also think the "lack of belief" point presents a problem to the agnostics that do not identify with the atheist and theist label. I have my own solutions, like when someone doesn't know what they believe perhaps they haven't made up their mind because they have conflicting beliefs. William brings up "maybe" God exists and maybe not, and that can be used by an independent agnostic, as well.

All great points. I still believe that an atheist typically does not believe in God(s) or the possibility of their existence, for the most part. Meaning, I will not broadly paint strokes like many do with us agnostics that we must be in one or the other category, so yeah, some atheists are just like I do not "know" and (conjunction), do not "believe" or inverse to do not "believe" and do not "know."

Whereas agnostics are more I do not "know," but it's possible as a rule...again exceptions exist, but the exceptions do not rule out my claim.

For me, I think it's possible, but I have no "belief" that God(s) are real or not, which is different from saying lack of belief entirely. Then again, in debate, most atheists tell me they do not think it's possible, even though they hit me with Webster's dictionary definition.

To make it more convoluted, different dictionaries and encyclopedias define atheism and agnosticism differently, related but with varying context that matters.
 
As I pointed out earlier, belief [or lack thereof] of 'Gods' existing, is secondary.

The Question isn't "Do you believe Gods exist?" but "Do we exist within a creation?"

The whole 'God' question and subsequent argument between religious theists and non-theists is manufactured on fallacy.

The only person that has the luxury of being identified as a "natural-neutral" is a baby or someone who has not encountered the God concept.

So here is someone who identifies as an 'agnostic' telling someone else what another's position means. Obviously it is not only atheists who think they have the right to do that.

The term "Natural-Neutral" was used by me as a temporary identifier as I became more aware that the identifier 'agnostic' wasn't appropriate.

In post #49 I make that obvious.

"Agnosticism is a form of Liminalism, applicable only to The Question "Do we exist within a creation?" re the theistic and atheistic answers and subsequent arguments re said question.

Liminalism is not limited to pondering questions specific to theistic/atheistic interpretation of the mind in relation to matter. That is a huge advantage."

6qI2JpQ.png
 
Last edited:
""Agnosticism is a form of Liminalism, applicable only to The Question "Do we exist within a creation?" re the theistic and atheistic answers and subsequent arguments re said question"

Will, is it, though? It seems to ask the question do we believe we exist within creation and/or is there a God(s) or not since God(s) can be real and not be a creator(s). Why should the God question require the creation and a creator?

There are deists, pantheists, theists, and even theists who do not believe in God(s) as prime mover.
 
The question is asked on account of the experiential reality we exist within.

Since folk are agreeing to that, there is no argument.

"Yes ... We exist within a reality we call "The Physical Universe."

The question "Do we exist within a creation?" comes from that shared position.

Theism then claims that we exist within a creation - the inference being "Therefore a creator."

The atheist responds from a position of lacking belief in creators.

The Liminalist responds to both theist and atheist points of view that we could exist within a creation and proceeds with finding out how this might be established as factual.

The Liminalist explains to both atheists and theists that the first question to ask and answer is not about having or lacking beliefs in creators, because it has yet to be established that we do or do not exist within a creation.

Why should the God question require the creation and a creator?

That is how a "God" is Generically spoken of.

Also to note, it is we within the Physical Universe who appear to require an answer and the question of "God" is secondary to the question of creation.
Thus, making it the first question requiring an answer, is fallacy.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: perplexedzeromass
The question is asked on account of the experiential reality we exist within.

Since folk are agreeing to that, there is no argument.

"Yes ... We exist within a reality we call "The Physical Universe."

The question "Do we exist within a creation?" comes from that shared position.

Theism then claims that we exist within a creation - the inference being "Therefore a creator."

The atheist responds from a position of lacking belief in creators.

The Liminalist responds to both theist and atheist points of view that we could exist within a creation and proceeds with finding out how this might be established as factual.

The Liminalist explains to both atheists and theists that the first question to ask and answer is not about having or lacking beliefs in creators, because it has yet to be established that we do or do not exist within a creation.



That is how a "God" is Generically spoken of.

Also to note, it is we within the Physical Universe who appear to require an answer and the question of "God" is secondary to the question of creation.
Thus, making it the first question requiring an answer, is fallacy.
William, I agree with most of your generalities, but I disagree with your last point:"

Also, to note, it is we within the Physical Universe who appear to require an answer and the question of "God" is secondary to the question of creation.
Thus, making it the first question requiring an answer, is fallacy."

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. There are a few religions with no deities, and others with God deities that are not creators, but even more importantly, an agnostic might not be convinced that religion can answer the questions in the first place.

That being said, I enjoyed reading this last post of yours and I got somethings from it--thanks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: William