Pericles,
"an agnostic is one who believes that the existence of God is not provable"

Different to what I thought it was. I consider myself agnostic but more because I believe that the non existence of God is unprovable. I don't think any God exists but have not considered every possibility. It would be possible for a God if one existed and chose to do so to provide proof sufficient to convince me of their existence. That raises the old quandry of all advanced technology looking like magic to those unfamiliar with it but I hope you get what I mean. There is a point where almost anything is unprovable if we don't work with certain assumptions.

I'm agnostic because I've examined to my satisfaction the predominant beliefs about god which I'm aware of and found them unconsistent enough to be confident that those Gods don't exist.

Maybe sitting on the fence or maybe just accepting that there are some things I don't know. Not really a big issue, if there is a god or gods somewhere they clearly are not concerned enough about my belief in them to make the idea of their existance believable.

R0bert

R0bert, Pericles, and others, what sort of evidence would you be looking for or would be satisfied with if you were attempting to decide if there really existed a Supreme Being?

R0bert,
presumably, you are also agnostic about the existence of fairies, goblins, the tooth fairy, father christmas, the devil, satan, Zeuss, the Valkyrie, Odin, the great spagetti monster...??
What does it take to make you take a position? All an atheist says is, "There is no credible scientific evidence for the existence of gods or other supernatural phenomena." Is that too definite for you?
Should such evidence turn up, then atheists would all admit their error. Meanwhile, they are free to live their lives without the encumbrance of irrationality; something an agnostic with his shilly-shallying about "you can never be sure" is unable to do, just in case there is an avenging god out there ready to turn him into a pillar of salt.

ybgirp, I hardly need concern myself with threats of retribution from gods who can not be bothered to make their existance clearly known without cause for doubt. If I lived my life by the possibility that one idea of god might turn me into a pillar of salt for a particular choice what would I do about the other god who wanted the exact opposite choice?

I'm quite happy to be athiest about specific gods where claims are made about those gods which don't stack up in the real world.

If the definition of an athiest is "There is no credible scientific evidence for the existence of gods or other supernatural phenomena." then I'd happily take that label. That in my view is what an agnostic says.

I've heard athiesm described in terms of certainty that there is not and cannot be a god

Not phrased that way but the gist of it is in a definition posted earlier "the classic definition of atheism is a belief that there is no god"

Mick V, something consistant with the claims of that faith which was not duplicated in other faiths, which was verifiable and which did not have a reasonable scientific explanation. Not claims thousands of years old, healings which demonstrate the amazing potential of the human mind and which occur across a variety of belief systems, not reports from far off lands or demonstrations of the power of group think.

Perhaps in the case of the main monothiestic gods a clean up of their houses. All those who preach hate in their names either removed or changed, all those who preach morality while horizontal dancing with the church office staff, kids in their care or hookers finding themselves lacking the equipment to continue to do so. If that happens I'll sit up and pay serious attention.

R0bert

RObert...<<I've heard athiesm described in terms of certainty that there is not and cannot be a god>> Yes. Christians are keen to promote such silliness because they can't understand the scientific method that takes a position based on available facts -- but is willing to change that position when further facts become available. Religion is based on faith, not facts and reality, and will not change, no matter what facts may arrise to contradict that faith.
<<Not phrased that way but the gist of it is in a definition posted earlier "the classic definition of atheism is a belief that there is no god">>
As always in English, words have several meanings. It is possible to say quite rationally "I believe the sun will rise tomorrow," because it has done so for millions of years and there's no reason to think it won't do so one more time. On the other hand it is totally irrational to say "I believe in a god," when there has never been one shred of real, provable evidence for the existence of such creatures. If an atheist inadvertently says he 'believes there is no god, that is not the same as believing in a god... his/her 'belief' is based on reason and observation, while the other is based on faith. All atheists I know -- and that's quite a lot, are careful not to fall into that 'trap' and usually say they 'think' rather than they believe, to avoid the chants of glee from brain damaged religionists who equate faith with fact.

Yes, Australians are getting fat in their complacency Amber (they are not watching the signs of the times of Luke chapter 21) yet all the while dark powers make their plans for our wonderful country. China has many agents here, so does Indonesia, and now even Iranian students are having to be watched for spy activity. I really thought Chen Yonglins "1,000 Chinese spies" knowledge might have wakened the nation up but we rolled over and went back to sleep.
I read Foxes Book of Martyrs and what the Romans did to the early church. Really exciting stuff for christian faith. Interesting story on the tsunamis christians.