Democritus
This is a quote from Thomas Huxley who invented the word 'Agnostic'

When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.
So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. To my great satisfaction the term took.

Thomas Huxley. Collected Essays

And this from Bertram Russel

An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time.

Bertram Russel, What Is An Agnostic?

Agnostic does not mean closet atheist. That position is a grave insult.
One thing that I am certain of is that old farts in drag performing black magic rites, or any other 'ceremony', has nothing to do with God (If God exists).
In an earlier comment I said that I do not (usually) have a problem with atheists because, unlike the Christians, they not try to convert me and save my soul. It could be that they are of a peaceful nature or that we have a common bond against the aberration of religion, but it is not because we are the same.

Sells,

I wonder if you are aware that, you walk with generic atheism with one leg and Christianity with the other. You see these systems, as opposites, when these systems are not. Atheism is in opposition to Theism. Christianity is merely one religious element of Theism, having many religions. In post, you did not compare buildings-with-buildings: Instead, you compare buildings-with-doors. Theism and Christianity are not synonyms.

To accept, Jesus as God and the trinity unique, the correct process is to,first establish the existence of God and ensure there are no other trinities, out there...

Thus, one can only say Alexander was a Macedonian after, one has shown were/are Macedonians. Likewise, one can only assert Jesus is God, if there is a God, and, first having explained what God is, and, having qualified God. The same standard applies to the Christian trinity.

Before, referring to limited resources of the OT and NT, Nicaea and Constantinople, one should first examine alternative posits. In so doing, a rich vista of religiosities are revealed to the researcher. One sees gods as many as stars in the sky.

There trinities a plenty too. Leading rather than being led along the path of discovery, shows that there many religions and several trinities.

Viewed from the anthropomorphic perspective on Humanity, Sol, the Sun, is impressive indeed. Viewed from the perspective of an astronomer, Sol is a plain, typical star - nothing special. Viewed from the perspective of an anthropologist, religions can be explained as servants to societal needs. Gods are needed and evolve along with the developing societies which produce them. The same goes for trinities, where several societies closely aligned to the” Alexandrian God Factories” (Wells) and tethered to the Axial Age, developed trinities.

In sum, Gods and trinities can be researched in the same way as songs and farm implements. Religionists should come out of their cave as they can see the mountain (allusion to Confucius). Sells, you truly need to objectify for the domain of your research into god(s).

Best regards,

O.

Dear Daviy,

I’m still not seeing the as much of a distinction between Atheism and Agnosticism as I think you might be. Either the word limits affect our ability to communicate as effectively as we’d like or I’m just not as good at clarifying things as I thought.

Essentially, Atheism and Agnosticism are two different responses to two different questions. Atheism deals with belief, and Agnosticism deals with knowledge.

One can be an Agnostic Atheist (I don’t believe in god but I can’t know for sure) or an Agnostic Theist (I believe in god, but I can’t know for sure). There are varying degrees of each and I think it would be extremely rare to find someone who was smack-bang in the middle.

This is why I took issue with your claim that Agnosticism was the most reasonable position. It sounded too narrow for my liking and it assumed that Atheists claimed knowledge of the non-existence of any god.

In regards to knowledge, both you and I are Agnostics. In regards to belief, I think we are both Atheists, although I probably swing a little further to the Atheist end of the scale than you do. Unless, of course, you consider yourself to be smack-bang down the center.

Adam
Shall we adjourn this and deal with the Christians first.
Pericles
Paul's version of Christianity is the primitive 'scapegoat' theory. This goes that you take goat (or another innocent animal) and dress it up in fine robes, feed it the best foods and lavish praise on it. In some way this is supposed transfer all sin from the one giving the praise to praised. Then the goat is sacrificed and sin dies with the goat.
In the Christian version the sin is original sin caused by the woman in the Garden of Eden and the innocent is Jesus. The purpose of praising Jesus is to transfer sin to Jesus who is then symbolically sacrificed every Sunday.
Very early after the death of Jesus the other (then) main Christian group, the Gnostics, said this was rubbish because if 'the woman' was the cause of sin, and (as the Paulians claimed) sin is passed down through the female line then Jesus could not be free of sin even if it was a virgin birth. Basically Christianity as we now know it is rubbish because the whole premise of Christianity self destructs.
The Christian hierarchy knows, and has always known that Christianity is BS. It is the impossibility of Christianity that Pius IX tried to fix in 1854 when he issued his papal decree that by a special act of grace Mary had been declared free of sin from the moment of conception.
The whole of Christianity hangs, not on Jesus, but on the concept of the immaculate conception. If you believe that load of old rubbish you will believe anything.
I came to my position of understanding Christianity was BS because I had many Christian friends and I was considering joining them. But as is my habit before making a decision I investigated with as an open mind as possible.
The final result of my investigation was the understanding that Christianity is an abomination built on lies, lies and more lies.
All religion is rubbish, but in the case of Christianity it is provable

Daviy

While I have no argument with the origins of the word agnostic, it would be a mistake to assume that agnostic and atheist are mutually exclusive.

Before Huxley invented agnostic there were essentially the terms theist (believes that god or gods are responsible for the creation and functioning of the universe) and atheist who simply was not a theist. This was similar to symmetrical and asymmetrical. (There is no partially symmetrical)

In the days of Huxley, the term atheist had very negative connotations and would often have led to exclusion from polite society. (in a similar way that “kafir” or unbeliever was used by the Muslims to denote an almost subhuman status.) To some extent the invention of the word agnostic was to create a sanitized non believer position that would be a safe haven from those that found the word atheist offensive, yet could not reconcile with the existing belief systems.

The invention of agnostic did not change the definition of atheist. It is not like a fuel tank where the needle indicates either full, empty or in between with agnostic filling the mid range.

The narrow definition of atheist is like claiming that all dogs are small and fluffy because only Maltese poodles are dogs.

Your offence at the possibility of being defined as an atheist speaks to the vilification that this label carries, and not to its meaning.

You stated “Does God exist? We do not know. The only evidence is that we cannot prove God does not exist. Is God a construct? We do not know. The only evidence for deigning the existence of God is that we cannot prove God does exist. The only reasonable position is to be Agnostic.”

From your statement, you could not by any means be described as a theist as you state no where that you believe that god or gods exist, and you fall firmly within the definition of atheist.

Your claim of no absolute belief in the non existence of god is shared by the vast majority of atheists including myself

It has taken a long time for humankind to accept women as part of society, not just as breeding cows. Protestant Christianity still has trouble with that equality thing. Atheists have a deep seated desire to not accept that Jesus Christ was the great liberator of women, recognized their worth for the first time, and that Christianity is vitually the only religion that values and appreciates women.

Gradually as women have been elevated to almost equality, society has changed for the better. My experience of women is that they feel secure with clear and cogent rules. This is a paradox, because this is in direct contrast to the teachings of the New Testament, which says there are only two rules. Have one God, and do not hurt your neighbour. This is too simple for many and a prime example is Canon Law.

The concept of original sin is to me a Protestant absolutely incomprehensible, as is the concept of purgatory; likewise the concept of any human as superior to another. When Eleanor Roosevelt proposed the concept of a universal international Covenant, it is simply a codification of the New Testament. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is simply a rewrite of the ideas in the four Gospels. Perhaps that is why the atheists on the High Court and all Federal Court Judges, refuse to admit argument based upon it. They are atheists because they believe they are gods in their own courts.

The Covenant says all persons are equal before the law. Christianity says ask and you shall receive, knock and it will be opened for you. Ask through Jesus, and my Father which art in heaven will give you what you ask for. The atheists say that no one is entitled as of right to anything. The State owns everything, including all the people and may do with them as it will. To separate Church and State Jesus invented jury trial. Atheists deny God’s gift of freedom, guaranteed by jury trial, and substitute a god they say they don’t believe in, a State appointed Judge