my mistake, i gave you too much credit. you are a theist and believe in things for no reason. you are not agnostic if you believe in a creator.
your definition: disbelieve: transitive verb ... reject or withhold belief do you know what "or" means? what about "withhold"? do you know what that means? let me help you. withholding belief is not denying. it is withholding belief. thats what it says. use your eyes. i will make it simple for you: if your definition says disbelief can mean to withhold belief, then we can say that your first sentence is saying "i am withholding belief abot god" which is certainly NOT a complete conviction or denial. i dunno what keeps you from understanding that.
martin, is there anything between an atheist & theists? Or can an agonstic person only be an atheist agnostic or a theist agnostic?
i cant tell if you are pulling my chain. this is simple word origin stuff. theism means god-belief. a theist believes in some sort of vague creator of no particular description. possibly not a god like we think of god, maybe a "prime mover" like stephen hawking talks about. atheism obviously means without belief in the same way that amoral means without morals and asynchronous means without synchronization. an agnostic isnt confident enough to admit they do not believe in god. they are basically saying they arent gonna answer, because humans are not equipped to know yet or whatever. an agnostic does not believe in the god of any religion. they might be waiting for some real religion to come along. i think most people who call themselves agnostics would agree with me that they were atheists if we broaden the definition of atheism the way i like to so that it literally means without belief. in this thread we see how people like to claim atheists are denying god exists, which they really are not. certainly many athiests are denying that god exists as described by the popular religions, because that god is described in such a way as to be a logical impossibility.
I'm an atheist, and I don't rule out the possibility of a god. Your premise is entirely incorrect, and thus your conclusion is invalid. Agnostics, as Madalyn O'Hair once stated, are just chicken**** atheists. They are a mere subset... they're atheists (that is, without a god belief) who are just too chicken**** to say "I have no reason to believe in god" When I say "there is no god" it's a statement of belief, not of absolute knowledge. I don't claim any more absolute knowledge than somebody who calls himself "agnostic" does. I do, however, claim more reason.
So is there a name affiliated for those of us who believe in a higher power but don't agree with the institutionalization of religion ?
I did not say that such a creator had to be a diety. It could be a phenomenon. But it could also be a diety. How could we possibly know?
right, so why would you believe in something you are clueless about? you know nothing about this creator phenomenon thing, except that you beleve in it for no reason? why? i agree with you that it is possible there is some sort of vague item that may or may not have done something, but that i have no reason to think that is any more likely than that being the absolute furtherst thing from the truth. so why would you believe that? i thought you said we cant possibly know?
