Is being agnostic just a sell out for not being able to commit to athiesm or christianity?

No, furthermore an agnostic is an atheist, by definition. (because they don’t believe in god)

Of course not, it’s the only theological position based on logic.

Agnosticism is the lack of knowledge as to the existence of a higher power. It is not in any sense a cop out, just a recognition of reality: the supernatural has been defined in such a way that we cannot know its contents regardless of their truth values.

No.

@the_force: An agnostic can be an atheist, but it is not always the case.

@asmonet wrong, if you believe in god, you are neither an agnostic, or an atheist, if you don’t believe in god you are an atheist, and you may be an agnostic.

I was under the impression an agnostic isn’t sure about whether or not there is a god. If that’s the case, I applaud them for admitting that they don’t know rather than rambling on like the rest of us about how sure they are about something that in reality, none of us can be sure about. But I do believe in God.

Agnostics can be atheists and they can be theists.

Agnosticism neither prevents, nor obviates the necessity of, being either of those two.

I’m agnostic, I believe I can speak about the subject correctly.

a person who claims that they cannot have true knowledge about the existence of God (but does not deny that God might exist)

Is one definition.

You should read up more about Agnosticism.

I think there is a lot of semantic nonsense swirling around the words “agnostic” and “atheist.”

The word agnostic means you can’t be certain. Well, according to quantum mechanics, I can’t be certain that my couch isn’t going to spontaneously turn from solid to insubstantial. There is a very slight possibility that my body will pass through all the atoms in my couch. So therefore, strictly speaking, I’m agnostic about whether or not I’ll fall through my couch if I sit on it.

But I still sit on my couch.

Similarly, I’m agnostic about the existences of Thor, Zeus, Yahweh, Oludamare, Vishnu, Yu Yevon, and all the hundreds of deities posited by human religions. There’s a very slight possibility that Zeus could really exist and everyone is wrong. But nevertheless, I don’t actually spend time worshipping Zeus. I don’t construct hecatombs dedicated to Zeus. Functionally speaking, I do not believe in Zeus, in the exact same way that I do not believe I will fall through my couch.

So in other words, it seems like a lot of people who call themselves “agnostic” are functionally indistinguishable from people who call themselves atheist. In fact, by this definition, I am both an agnostic and an atheist.

But there are other people who understand the word “agnostic” to mean that you are genuinely on the fence. That you’re maybe 50/50 about the possibility of Zeus existing, (or that you’ll fall through your couch), so you construct hecatombs (or OCD-test your couch for solidness every time) “just in case.” I’m not one of these agnostics.

Yes.

I am 99.9% sure there is no god. However, I am unwilling to say that anything is impossible, so can I really call myself an atheist? Maybe there is a god, I highly doubt it, but maybe. If agnostic is the only word that describes this idea then so be it. But I am not really an athiest and I am not a believer. My unwillingness to say that I am 100% sure there is no god means I am not an atheist. How is that a cop-out?

Let me clear something up for you people. Atheist= without belief in god Agnostic= you do not believe in something that cannot be proven, therefore, an agnostic is always an atheist.

ya. but people go through phases. i think it is more of a cop out to pick one or the other and stick to it no matter what.

@tinyfaery: Welcome to the Agnostic Club. :)

@the_force: You’re misinterpreting Agnosticism. Please read this.

I like how @tinyfaery and @essieness explained it. I’m proud to be an agnostic and I’m certainly not on the fence concerning my belief.

@asmonet I’ve been an atheist/agnostic long enough to know exactly what I’m talking about, thank you.

@jonsblond Hey thanks!

@tinyfaery

But you don’t believe in god. That’s the definition of atheism, so how can you claim to not be an atheist?

@tinyfaery, are you 100% sure that you won’t fall through your couch if you try and sit on it?

This is why I prefer to talk about “belief” in terms of function. I may be unsure about whether or not I’ll fall through my couch. But you can be unsure about something and still believe if we define belief as resulting in a definite action.

What most of you do not understand is that being an atheist does not mean you reject the possibility of a god existing.

@asmonet wait wait a minute. that is a link to “agnostic theism” here is what the link to “agnosticism” says:
Agnosticism (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, ghosts, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove. It is often put forth as a middle ground between theism and atheism,[1] though it is not a religious declaration in itself.

so the_force’s claim seems to be fair. you 2 are talking about 2 different things (similar, but not the same)

It’s the more logical position. But… agnostics do not practice any other religion so they might be atheists in some ways already. I’m an agnostic atheist. Of course I don’t KNOW, but I have pretty good reason to suspect God’s nonexistence.

but agnostic is not atheist, they are similar but not the same

If there is any type of afterlife I hope only that it is free of semantic arguments about philosophical subjects.

if there is no afterlife i guess that none of the above is a…perk?

@Lefty_the_space_monkey Did you actually read what I wrote? I do not know whether or not there is a god. How is that an atheist?

atheism
noun
the theory or belief that God does not exist From my macbook dictionary.

@alive: That’s what I’ve been trying to say.

@the_force: Atheism is the philosophical position that deities do not exist, or that rejects theism. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.

@Qingu No, I am not 100% sure I will not fall through my couch. I am not 100% sure that zombies won’t come running through my door right now. I can’t say that anything is impossible, or conversely, I can say that absolutely anything can be possible.

@tinyfaery

I did. I hope I didn’t come off as adversarial.

But while atheist can be used to describe someone who believes god doesn’t exist, that’s overly narrow. Generally it’s the first definition listed (and apparently the only one in Dictionary), but technically anyone who doesn’t believe in god is an atheist.

You can’t be sure of anything, so technically nobody is an atheist or a theist, if you define that as someone who is 100% sure of their belief.

Many people are 100% sure in there beliefs.

@tinyfaery I’ve never met anyone who identifies as an atheist and believed that there was absolutely no chance of any divinities existing.

@Blondesjon

It won’t be. We’ll all just be talking about what lies beyond the afterlife. Sort of similar to ‘pataphysics. :D

@Jiminez…Give me an absurdist over these literalists any day.

@tinyfaery, if you are not 100% certain about anything, then does that mean you don’t have any beliefs?

I submit to you that the only difference between yourself and an atheist like me is simply that I understand the word “belief” to include things that you are not 100% certain of. I believe that I will not fall through my couch, even though I’m not 100% certain. You, on the other hand, apparently think the definition of the word “belief” requires 100% certainty. Which seems like a strange definition to me, but that’s semantics.

omg this place is some kinda crazy clusterfuck of answers!

@Qingu

Ok, so I don’t know there is a god and I cannot say I believe in a god, but I do believe I cannot know. Ahh words…so utterly meaningless.

@boots

I know, right? this was my first question at wis.dm, too.
I didn’t get close to this many answers!

@tinyfaery, I guess what I’m getting at is, functionally speaking, you are indistinguishable from an atheist. Regardless of what you choose to call yourself, you probably do not go to church or worship any gods. You probably don’t ever weigh the benefits between obeying and disobeying any religious texts. With respect to the question of gods’ existence, you behave in the exact same way as an atheist behaves.

So I think you just ought to call yourself an atheist. But that’s just me.

Ok, but then I must always qualify my position. If I call myself an agnostic, I do not.

I’m not sure why everyone assumes that what they believe must be the truth.
Words are pretty easy if you look at etymology

Theism – from Gk. theos “god”
Atheism – from a- “not” + theos “god”
Agnostic – from a- “not” + gnostos ”(to be) known”

@tinyfaery, do you normally qualify your position when you say “I believe/do not believe X”? Since you can’t be 100% sure of anything…

Well, yes. It’s not like everyone in the world knows my philosophy. How else can I get my point across?

She believes in something just not God.
From what I recall

So if I asked you “do you believe the earth revolves around the sun,” you would say, “Yes but not for 100% sure”?

Not in everyday conversation, but for something like this, yes. I think I’m done. I feel like you are just being oppositional. ☮

That’s Qingu’s MO – Beat the other person into submission.
He’ll learn soon enough…. : )

That’s a bit condescending. I wasn’t trying to be oppositional or “beat tinyfaery into submission.” I was engaging in a debate, which I am perfectly happy to stop if that’s what she wants to do.

@lazydaisy such a hot discussion topic deserves some lurve

Sorry Qingu – I must have been thinking of last weekend. : )

Though, she did seem to sum up her position here

@alive

I could use some lurve!

This view, in my mind, is based on the odd notion that the only legitimate beliefs to have are either total belief in a deity, or belief that there is no such thing.

Some agnostics simply don’t find much meaning in the debate over ‘Is there any diety or is there not?’. Some honestly have found that their consciousness is too limited to be able to know either way – and personally, I have great respect for the humility in recognizing that.

But, just like every category of subscribers to various beliefsystems & ideals, they’re not a homogenous group… so unless there’s a creed they all adhere to, it’s rather impossible to make judgements about the whole group’s beliefs (& possibly character), even based on knowing a few members of it.

@alive great answer. Life is supposed to change our outlook on reality… so it only makes sense that our worldview will evolve over time, imho.

@resmc, I don’t think your statement “their consciousness is too limited to be able to know either way” applies generally when it comes to specific deities.

Ask an agnostic if they believe in God and they’ll likely say “I don’t know.”

Ask them if they believe in a specific god, like Zeus, Odin, or Yahweh, then they’re usually not so unsure. Or at least they don’t act like it, since not many leave hecatombs to Zeus, throw spears over slaughtered enemies dedicated to Odin, or pray to Jesus for forgiveness for pissing off Yahweh.

@resmc – I agree. and sometimes (often), even with a creed, it is rather impossible to make blanket judgments about belief.

@resmc thanks, feel free to click the “great answer button! ;)

I believe in no anthropomorphic or animalistic deities or in any deity. I don’t believe there are spirits in rocks or trees. I don’t believe in fairies or in any supernatural being directly involving themselves in the affairs of human beings in any way whatsoever. So in that sense, I am an atheist.

But… what I do believe is that the energy of everything in this vast universe is connected in that Lennon-ish “I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together” sort of way. And that each energy affects things one to the other. After all, the wings of a butterfly beating in Brazil could be a hurricane in a couple of days. Is that atheism in the wider sense? I’m not sure that it is.

Sounds more like Buddhism

Some useful concepts:

“Strong atheism” is the belief that it is impossible for a god or gods to exist.
“Weak atheism” is the belief that a particular god’s existence has not been proven, or that a particular god’s existence has been disproven.
“Strong agnosticism” is the belief that it is impossible to know whether a god or gods exist.
“Weak agnosticism” is the belief that a particular god’s existence is unknown.

(Yes, weak atheism and weak agnosticism are pretty much the same thing.)

@Qingu: the distinctions between some of these states are important. If someone does not go to church because she does not think the case for the existence of the Christian God has been proven to her satisfaction (weak atheism/agnosticism), that is qualitatively different from someone not going to church because she thinks that it is impossible for the Christian God to exist (strong atheism). You can claim all you like that the behavior is the same and so weak atheism and strong atheism are functionally equivalent, but that is only because you are not looking at cases where the behavior differs.

@aprilsimnel Indeed – my beliefs are rather similar to yours. This whole idea of theism/atheism/agnosticism as being the only real categories of belief that matter is very centered around monotheism, and discounts all the many plethora of conceptions of the nature of reality.

As an extention of that, it’s rather Eurocentric, seeing how it views a type of belief so predominant in the West (plus in Muslim lands) that it’s assumed everyone has it unless stated otherwise, and any belief other than the default (or which doesn’t take the existence or lackthereof as the basis of defining it) is discounted. Brahmanism and all sorts of other conceptions are highly influential in other cultures, and throughout the history of the world, yet don’t even show up as possible beliefs under the assumption that one can only be a theist or an atheist (or perhaps a ‘heathen’ as a catch-all for all non-Abrahamic beliefsystems).

@cwilbur, I’ve never liked that “classification of unbelief.”

I submit that if you interrogated one of these “strong atheists” Socrates-style you would inevitably get them to admit they are unsure about some bedrock principle leading up to their argument. Being 100% sure of anything is really a difficult position to support, since you can’t even be 100% sure you yourself exist (Descartes aside, and that was more of a starting axiom anyway—axioms are assumed, not known absolutely).

So I think that in most cases, upon examination, “strong atheists” and “weak atheists” really just differ in the semantic definition of words like “belief” and “certainty.”

I call myself 99% atheist, 1% agnostic. That means I’m pretty sure, but I’m not smart enough to say I know absolutely. Or I’m smart enough not to.

@Fluther…I need to paint a symbol on my front door. Has anyone got some lambs blood?

just in case…

@PupnTaco

what’s the other 1%?

Typo. See what I mean?

Oh, I figured the other 1% was Manhattans and Sidecars.

@PupnTaco

I just thought you were being mysterious

@Qingu: Yes, if you interrogate most people aggressively, you can get them to say any damn fool thing you want, if only because they’ll say it to end the interrogation.

This does not often lead to the truth, but no doubt it is very satisfying for the interrogator.

Krishna save me from anyone who has to be right.

@cwilbur, come on, dude. You know I wasn’t using “interrogate” in that sense. My point was that the strong atheism position is not an intellectually rigorous position, which is why so few atheists actually have the position if you ask them about it. I don’t know any, personally or in popular culture—do you?

@Qingu: I think “logically rigorous” is a very difficult burden to meet, especially since logic only tells you where you get when you start from a certain set of premises. Depending on which premises you start from, with rigorous logic you can reach the conclusion that no god can exist or that the Christian God does exist.

And since a premise is a starting point, something that you accept without proof for the purpose of the argument, you cannot prove them, only reduce them to other premises or show, by demonstrating that the result you get if you assume two premises are true is inconsistent, that both cannot be true.

(And “I don’t know any, personally or in popular culture” is a fallacy – argumentum ad numerum. If I pointed out Richard Dawkins, that would be an argument to authority, another fallacy.)

@cwilbur, I think you missed my point, which is that there are actually very few strong atheists, (and they are probably all crackpots). Richard Dawkins is not a “strong atheist.” For my part, I have trouble imagining an atheist who would actually claim to be able to be 100% certain about anything via the nitpicky definition of “certainty” at question here. Do you dispute this?

And yes, you can “logically” conclude anything just be presupposing that it’s true. I could presuppose that cwilbur is an ancient Babylonian demon, and thus logically conclude that cwilbur is an ancient Babylonian demon, because logic, strictly defined, functions like a mathematical process separate from empirical inputs. I fail to see how this insight interacts with the discussion.

How about if we use the same system as court trials?

Yes, beyond Reasonable doubt = Theist
Hung Jury = Can’t Decide/Don’t Care = Agnostic
No, beyond Reasonable doubt = Atheist

What’s the test for “reasonable doubt”?

@fireside: LOL, more like 33% Manhattans & Sidecars.

This sentence from Wiki seems to sum it up best for use in this circumstance:

“There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would not affect a “reasonable person’s” belief regarding whether or not [God exists].”

This means that a church going (or not), God loving (or fearing) person may have a slight doubt, but that small amount of doubt does not change their belief or their way of life.

Same thing with an Atheist, there’s that tiny chance that there may be a God, but not enough of a chance to convince.

Agnostic is basically staying out of the debate, or perhaps participating so as to gain more insight which may help tip the scales either way.

@PupnTaco – lol

@Qingu: If you’re going to claim that Dawkins is not a strong atheist, you’re going to have to account for his book The God Delusion and many of the things he’s said on the record in public.

And if you’re going to argue logic in public, you really need to study it formally. Every argument is based on things that are assumed to be true, because there are some things that are simply unprovable. (Does anyone but me exist?) If you assume that the thing you wish to prove is true, that’s a specific fallacy called ‘begging the question.’ But every argument essentially reduces to inference starting from agreed-upon unprovable things, and if you don’t understand that, you’re going to be endlessly frustrated. Especially if you insist on logical rigor—you have to understand standards of proof and argumentation.

A model for this is Euclid’s approach to geometry. There are four postulates, or premises—they can’t be proven, but they’re accepted as fact. The fifth postulate is that parallel lines never intersect. If you assume it is true, you get Euclidean geometry. If you assume that parallel lines diverge, you get hyperbolic geometry. If you assume that parallel lines converge, you get spherical geometry.

@cwilbur, you defined a strong atheist as someone who believes it is “impossible for a god or gods to exist.” This is not what Dawkins believes and he has said so in numerous places. (A relevant chapter in The God Delusion is called “Why there are almost certainly no gods.”)

And I still don’t understand why you feel the need to lecture me on logic and fallacies. Do you really think I don’t know how postulates work, cwilbur?

@cwilbur

Did you just say that people who want to argue on the internet should take university level classes in formal debate?

Because I feel like you did, and I hope I’m wrong…

@Lefty_the_space_monkey, he didn’t say that. But I think we’d both agree that a familiarity with formal logic is useful in any debate. Certainly a familiarity with informal logic and common fallacies is pretty essential if you’re going to be arguing on the internet, otherwise you’re probably just shouting opinions at each other.

I think part of the confusion here is how we define agnosticism. Some read it as “I’m not sure, I haven’t decided.”

I read it as “there is no way to know one way or the other.”

@PupnTaco – According to Noon, that would be called Ignosticism.

@Qingu: When you claim to understand logic, and then confuse having unprovable premises with begging the question, something does not jive. If you understood logic, you would understand the concept of the premise of the argument, and you would understand all the various logical fallacies. But your arguments do not demonstrate this understanding, and so I conclude that you do not, in fact, understand formal logic. This would not be a problem, except that you keep on insisting on intellectual and logical rigor, and so when you do, I can either point out that you are not, in fact, hewing to any sort of logical rigor, or walk away. In other words: if you were logically rigorous every time you claimed to be, I would not have any cause to point out your logical flaws and lecture you on logic.

@Lefty_the_space_monkey: If you’re going to insist that your argument is logically sound, you should have some concept of what that means. If you’re going to make a huge fuss about intellectual rigor, and especially if you’re accusing others of not having it, you need to make damned sure you understand logic, which probably means having the sort of understanding you’d get from a university-level class. Otherwise, people who do understand logical rigor are going to go through your argument playing spot-the-fallacy, which is only entertaining for the first 2 or 3 times.

On the other hand, if you’re just going to argue and discuss informally, it’s probably enough to be willing to consider “that doesn’t follow, and here’s why.”

Once again, @cwilbur, repeatedly asserting that my arguments are illogical is quite different from showing they are illogical. To respond briefly, a premise can beg the question, and I was just being playful. I don’t think you’re fooling anyone, it’s tiresome, and, of course, we’re quite off subject.

Would you like to get back to your claims about strong atheism? Do you see how the categorization is problematic if even Richard Dawkins is not a “strong atheist”? Incidentally, your tirade about premises is not entirely off topic, because it is the reason I don’t think there are any strong atheists with what I called “intellectual rigor.” The fact that all logic and knowledge ultimate depends on postulates—which are essentially unsupported assumptions—means we cannot technically know anything for 100% certain (because the postulates on which they depend are assumed). I’d wager the vast majority of atheists realize this and so cannot be said to be “strong atheists.” Which is why I find the category a bit silly and pointless. Do you agree with me?

No, I think it’s fairly clear that I don’t agree with you.

Do you at least agree that Richard Dawkins is not a strong atheist?

Have I said anything between my earlier use of him as an example of the strong atheist viewpoint to indicate that I have changed my mind?

The two hedge words “almost certainly” in his book do not change the strength of his conviction, especially given his public demeanor in regards to the question and the title of his book.

You: “Strong atheism” is the belief that it is impossible for a god or gods to exist.

Would you care to revise your definition to include people who are merely “strongly convinced” there are no gods?

Edit: Dawkins explicitly does not categorize himself as a strong atheist. From Wikipedia : In The God Delusion Dawkins describes people for whom the probability of the existence of God is between “very high” and “very low” as “agnostic” and reserves the term “strong atheist” for “I know there is no god”. He categorises himself as a “de facto atheist” but not a “strong atheist” under this definition.

So is everyone agnostic?

Nope, i don’t think so. Nobody can prove or disprove the existence of God, so that is almost the only thing that makes sense….. :)

@fireside, it depends on how the term “agnostic” is defined.

Under the definition commonly used by people when talking about religion, I’m “agnostic” about whether or not I’m going to fall through my couch when I go to sit on it.

@JellyB, which God are you talking about?

Do you think you can prove or disprove the existence of Zeus or Thor?

What about fairies? (The reason you can’t ever see fairies is because they make themselves invisible when humans are near.)

I think Carl Sagan puts it best in his allegory about a dragon in your garage. If I claim to have a fire-breathing dragon in my garage, you can come over and test this claim in a variety of ways—and I can come up with any excuse I like when your tests don’t verify the dragon’s existence. If you don’t see any dragon in my garage, I can claim it’s invisible. If you spread flour on the floor and don’t see any footprints from the invisible dragon, I can claim it’s non-corporeal. If you test for infrared heat signatures, I can claim it doesn’t give off any heat and doesn’t interact with matter. Which begs the question: what is the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, un-sensable dragon, and no dragon at all? The same idea applies to gods.

@Qingu Um, oh….just in case my response wasn’t clear – i was saying being agnostic makes sense, since no one can prove the existence (or not) of God.

You have a good point, and i agree. So, we’re saying that any belief in this regard is subjective?

@JellyB, I’m saying that it’s pointless to identify yourself as an agnostic if you’re literally agnostic about everything. Using the word “agnostic” that way does not give us any information about the beliefs in question. That is why I prefer to call myself an “atheist” instead of an “agnostic,” though I suppose technically I’m an “agnostic atheist.”

I don’t know what you mean by “any belief in this regard is subjective.” Subjectivity of belief is a whole other discussion, but I certainly don’t think one belief is as good or as justified as another, if that’s what you mean.

@Qingu Ok….me, personally, i think i do believe there is a God of some sort…more specific, that we are God and creators of our own realities. But that is my own subjective belief, nobody else can prove or disprove my beliefs. But, i know that my belief may not be right either, of course….right in the sense that it’s a fact, or true. So, i could have decided to be an agnostic, because i am not sure whether there is such a higher entity or not.
I don’ think it’s pointless in the question of whether or not there is a God. Most other things that we come across in our life are clearly there, or they’re not, for everybody to see. Except God. So one is not agnostic about everything, only regarding the God question.

@JellyB, I agree that we all create our own realities. However, I think that idea is outside the definition of what people normally think of when they say the word “God.”

This is why I think it’s important, when debating the existence of God, to actually focus on a specific deity. Because people use the word “god” a million different ways, often to mean a completely vague, impersonal, math-like force or structure, which is a very different entity than the gods of religion.

@Qingu Ah ok. Well, even those who aren’t religious usually believe in a single invisible higher deity, whatever that may be. It doesn’t really matter to the one calling themself an agnostic, because according to them, there is no proof of any sort of higher deity, right? So as far as the belief in any higher deity is concerned, i don’t think agnostic is too broad a term. IMHO.

@Qingu: yes, and George Bush calls himself a moderate.

When someone makes a statement about himself that is not consistent with his behavior, I base my opinion of him not on the statement but on the behavior.

But your definition of “strong atheist” had nothing to do with behavior.

I don’t have a problem if you want to define “atheist” functionally, based on behavior. That is what I have been advocating this whole thread.

No, my definition of strong atheist has to do with belief. But belief informs behavior, and Dawkins’s behavior—in particular, his militant advocacy for atheism—is incongruent with weak atheism.

Can you support your assertion that his behavior is incongruent with weak atheism?

You can’t be a forceful spokesperson for a position unless you are beyond-a-doubt 100% convinced that the position is right?

For further clarification: I don’t think it’s impossible for me to fall through my couch. According to quantum mechanics, there’s a very slight possibility that this will happen. But I still sit in my couch.

I used to try to realign my atoms and pass my hand through my desk.
Stupid science teacher…

@Qingu: I think if you have a reasonable doubt about whether the position is correct, you don’t write books calling people who disagree with you ‘deluded.’

“Reasonable doubt”?

I thought your criteria for strong atheist was “impossible.”

Woo Hoo! My definition wins by method of osmosis : )

I think yours is a much better definition than this “strong/weak” nonsense. (As long as we define “reasonable doubt” based on functional behavior.)

@Qingu: Precisely. If he had a reasonable doubt, he would not write books calling other people deluded. If he thought it was possible that there was a god or gods, he would not be so dismissive of people who disagreed with him. Therefore, he has no doubt, which means he’s not a weak atheist, no matter what he claims.

Regardless, at this point, I’m tired of chopped logic and word games. I think my position is clear. I’m done.

I’m an agnostic, I won’t rule out anything but it has nothing to do with a fear or sitting on the fence about any organized religion.

Nope – it’s just another label that causes more problems than it solves…..

@VzzBzz
I’m with you.

For lack of a better term, guess I’d call myself agnostic. I would not choose to be a part of any organized religion.

@catinthehat I can see that. I would call myself agnostic, but only because I don’t have any of the answers. I know what I know