The Existence of God

Jinny,

<<Maybe one day we'll convince you we are worth dropping a group for, Selador >>

Quite likely. Or perhaps the Lindens will raise the maximum number of groups one can belong to.

I also fear fire, and I'm pretty damn sure that exists. I also am pretty sure about the existence of the cure, water, to it to.

But flippancy aside (no offense intended), yes, fear of death is one of the classic reasons why the skeptical have to wonder if human religious fervor is simply a delusion. I would add a few others, sheer indoctrination, want of purpose, answers to questions, desire for justice/balance, whatever. And as an agnostic who hopes there is something more than the physical universe, well, this "delusion" can strike me harder than most, even though I know I am susceptible to it. Kind of a self-correcting and reenforcing agnsoticism.

By my beliefs I don't think you can either prove or disprove the exisitence of a deity/creator though scientific means. Scientific rules of thumb perhaps (Occam), but those are not proofs, just helpful scientific shortcuts to help find a proof.

So you can believe or disbeleive, and neither side can prove the other wrong. So why don't we all just get along? Though I admit certain religions are rather more hostile than your friendly neighborhood atheist.

As for attempting to prove the nature of a deity, that's just logical suicide. But just because our conceptions of the divine have changed and sometimes even now are downright wacky, so were our views on nature. If a deity exists, just beacuse a Christian may not recognize him/her/it doesn't matter a whit to said deity.

As for the net cost/benefit of institutionalized religion, that can be another topic.

Lit,

<<So why don't we all just get along?>>

9/11, for one. Religions have caused so much human misery, I feel the world would be a much better place without them. Unfortunately religions seem to incite some people to extremes of intolerance.

Even sane religious people seem to make it their ambition to convert me. I went to see a friend not long ago, and the conversation got around to the WTC outrage. Not long afterwards his wife sent me (knowing I am an atheist) a religious tract about the issue. That's worse than trying to convert me to a Tory!

Having said that, I am more than willing to see debate in this forum, which is surely the place for it.

I have to ask, and sorry it is a bit off topic, but Selador, do you really believe religion, beyond the religion of hating America, was a significant contributor to 9/11?

The vast majority of muslims deplored it. Even muslim states that don't like the US said it was wrong by and large. All the other big religions said it was wrong too.

Just to point it back vaguely towards topic, if, just for the moment, we assume the existence of god, what is the relationship between religion, spirituality and deity? Just for some precision here I mean religion as the organised structure of church, priests etc, spirituality as the personal interaction with deity (as modified by religion assuming you adhere to one), and deity as whatever format of God, Goddess, pantheon etc. you choose.

EDIT: Yet another long post from me, here's the summary.
I don't know if God exists, nor will I ever know. But I kind of want to believe, perhaps it is a delusion, and said delusions can be used for evil purposes. But if humanity lost the ability believe, I think we would lose a lot of other things as well, I'm not sure we would be truly human without it. As I kind of like humanity, though I admit I have not been anything else to truly compare it with, I'll take humanity with all it's foibles.
END EDIT

Selador,

Well, your example is where I make my delineation between religious belief and religious institutions. I can think of 4 different levels or type of religion.

First, religious institutions with substantial worldly power. Yeah, these can be and usually are bad. Though their primary motiviations are cast slightly differently, I think it is juts a special case of...

Second, uncontrolled centers of power with institutional religious support. Basically, the "church" signs off and gives "moral" credence for whatever action the true power wants. Publicaly it might be about relgion, and some of the populace might actually believe it. Of course, where religion isn't handy, you can substitute race, ethnicity, language, cultural history, whatever. But the end goal of this and even theocratic governments is worldly power, religion is just a convenient whip.

Third, personal religion matched with a psycotic mind. Take a person who has a personal belief system, but cross-wiring allows the person to believe that God is intructing him to kill people via his divine messenger, a dog. Again, I would say the cross-wiring is the true cause of evil here, the exact stated cause could be somthing else entirely.

Fourth, personal religion, no serious mental defects. Worst case, they get a little annoying trying to preach or convert, but they are harmless, and no worse than a telemarketer (faint praise perhaps).

The common thread I see is not that religion causes this, but that it is a tool to support evil for other purposes. Religion is a particularly effective tool, granted. But there are plenty of others. Individuals rarely decide to go out and whomp on people for any reason. You need to get them into groups to do that, mobs, and religion can be effective there.

But then so is soccer (I'm American, football to the rest of you). Religion can be used as a tool because it comes down to a personal belief, so there will always be outsiders to that belief. While it's abuse is lamentable, I do not wish we never had the problem. I don't think we could remove the religious element from the mind without taking away a lot of things that we place very great value on, hope, purpose, and a whole lot of other somewhat irrational preferences that we hold dear and cause us little problems otherwise.

Selador, that's why I keep coming back to this. You're an atheist, good for you, whatever works, no disrespect or Watchtowers will be coming from me. It's just your desire that our minds would not be susceptible to such potential delusions. If only "religion" could be lifted out of the mind directly, perhaps. But, given that it is impossible anyways, but I suspect that even if we lifted the "religion" out of us, I think we'd notice a lot of other pleasant and harmless things got taken away with it, and those I do not want to lose.

As for the uses of religion for evil purposes, I'd rather deal with that through opposing worldly power and keep that part of my mind intact. Your mileage may vary.

Eloise,

<<I have to ask, and sorry it is a bit off topic, but Selador, do you really believe religion, beyond the religion of hating America, was a significant contributor to 9/11?>>

Well, considering that it was carried out by Muslim fanatics against the 'infidels', and that the people who killed themselves by carrying out the attack did so in the belief that they would be rewarded in the afterlife, then yes, I do.

In fact I would go further. I felt that the oft-repeated mantra in America in the days following the atrocity, 'God Bless America' was, in the context, repellant. As was Bush's dreadul remark about 'a crusade'. It turned the whole awful business from a disgusting atrocity committed by evil people into a contest of deities, and to my mind devalued the tragedy of those who died.

I'm sorry that this is couched in strong terms, but that is how I felt - and feel - about the whole horrible business.

I realise that the bulk of Muslims disapproved of the attack, and that this kind of violence isn't promoted by the Q'ran. Indeed, Allah often counsels moderation. I realise too that killing homosexuals and negroes, or blowing up your enemies, is not advocated in the Bible, but it is something that is, or has been, done by some people who call themselves Christians. Fundamentalism is as much a part of religion as totalitarianism is a part of politics.

The problem as I see it is that religion is irrational. It is irrational, but also provides a moral framework for people to live by, without really thinking about the issues. Therefore it provides a justification for those people who otherwise might be restrained by the law or their own conscience. It is easy to persuade yourself that God wants you to do something, and if God wants it, then the laws of humanity are of little consequence.

So far as the definitions go, there is a difficulty, because particularly when it comes to religious belief, then we all approach these things from a different perspective. It might be that when you speak of spirituality, from your own personal experience, you might be talking about similar feelings to those that are produced in me by certain pieces of music, by contemplating the nature of time and space, by looking at some of the latest photographs of distant galaxies. But you might be talking about something else - something totally unknown to me.

The difficulty with discussions about religion - and indeed about anything! - is that we can't tap into each other's minds.

Lit,

Yes, I take the points you raise. Of course, when I wish that religion didn't exist I am talking speculatively. You are right when you say that other human institutions can demand a certain level of faith and obedience, and can be used as instruments of evil.

But for me the problem with religion is that as I said above, it is wholly based on irrationality - on faith. Politics can certainly be used as a tool for evil, but it is rarely totally based on faith. The most extreme political systems tend to be supported by an intellectual framework, however rickety that framework might be. And when you have an intellectual framework, it can eventually be dismantled. But religious faith is impervious to anything.

When you talk about personal religious feelings, I partly agree with you. I once met a Christian who really did good works - he put himself out, spent his own money and devoted his time to helping the homeless. He very much lived the kind of life that was recommended by Jesus. But equally, I have met Christians whose faith gave them an unshakeable conviction that they were better than everybody else.

<<I don't think we could remove the religious element from the mind without taking away a lot of things that we place very great value on, hope, purpose, and a whole lot of other somewhat irrational preferences that we hold dear and cause us little problems otherwise.>>

Well, I have hope and purpose and, I believe, a strong ethical framework. As for the other things, well, without being able to look into each other's minds, we wouldn't know whether I have those or not.

As one who grew up the son of a Presbyterian minister, and who was baptized by one Grandfather and whose other Grandfather ran the Sunday School program in his church, I feel lke I know a bit about organized religion.

The questions about the existence of g(G)od must be completely seperated from any question about the value of organized religion. One is a cultural phenonom, and the other is a theoligical/philoshpical question.

Organized religion has been the bane of humanity for a very long time, and exists to this day. The question of whether there is a creator with a purpose is a question that really has no answer until the day we die. And even then, we might not know the answer.

As a scientific type of person who wants to see experimental proof of any claim, I think the question is unanswerable; at least with the tools that we have today.

If there is a g(G)od, then I hope he/she has a good plan in mind. If there is not such a g(G)od, then I'm a bit puzzled about how all that we see and feel, even of it is all in our minds.

Until we can measure the (so-far) immeasurable, I don't know how this question can possibly be answered.

In the meantime, I'm gonna do what I think is right, avoid those things that I think that are wrong, and hope like hell that whoever might possibly be upstairs appreciates my effots.

- Ace

Selador, if it matters, I believe you do have hope, purpose and an ethical framework. I just think it's located in the same part of your brain/mind/whatever as faith, you just have that one part of it turned off, but that the capacity for those others also brings the capacity of faith, which we can choose to use or not.

But, of course, short of finding a genie in a bottle and wishing for it, we'll never know. Damn, never a genie around when you need one. Hmmm, wonder if any of Darko's glassware has mystical origins?

Phrased that way I can see your point. I'm just not sure I entirely agree with it. To my mind Osama hates America for some reason, and recruited among people of his own or a very similar culture because they are easier to manipulate in general. This happens to make them muslims, but their religion was, I think, more or less irrelevant to their actions.

From: someone

In fact I would go further. I felt that the oft-repeated mantra in America in the days following the atrocity, 'God Bless America' was, in the context, repellant. As was Bush's dreadul remark about 'a crusade'. It turned the whole awful business from a disgusting atrocity committed by evil people into a contest of deities, and to my mind devalued the tragedy of those who died.

The 'God Bless America' mantra was inevitable I guess, it is used (as I see it from over here) quite regularly in less strained circumstances, so I wasn't surprised to hear it in that context. I missed the crusade comment, i am sure I would have remembered it, because like you it think it is repellant.

From: someone

I'm sorry that this is couched in strong terms, but that is how I felt - and feel - about the whole horrible business.

No need to apologise to me, I know it is a strongly emotive issue for many, and although you have expressed it strongly it is still polite.

From: someone

Fundamentalism is as much a part of religion as totalitarianism is a part of politics.

The problem as I see it is that religion is irrational. It is irrational, but also provides a moral framework for people to live by, without really thinking about the issues. Therefore it provides a justification for those people who otherwise might be restrained by the law or their own conscience. It is easy to persuade yourself that God wants you to do something, and if God wants it, then the laws of humanity are of little consequence.

Interesting take, one I hadn't thought about. But then I am not religious and don't believe in an absolute morality whether provided by God (in whose existence I have insufficient evidence to believe) or 'natural law' or similar.

But taken at face value it does help explain some daft activities by the big Western/middle Eastern religions (Islam, Judaism, Christianity) and also some of the more Eastern religions, although my knowledge of their history is sketchier.

From: someone

So far as the definitions go, there is a difficulty, because particularly when it comes to religious belief, then we all approach these things from a different perspective. It might be that when you speak of spirituality, from your own personal experience, you might be talking about similar feelings to those that are produced in me by certain pieces of music, by contemplating the nature of time and space, by looking at some of the latest photographs of distant galaxies. But you might be talking about something else - something totally unknown to me.

The difficulty with discussions about religion - and indeed about anything! - is that we can't tap into each other's minds.

I agree that we might use different terms for the same things, or the same term for different things. Mind reading might make it easier, but perhaps the fun of talking things through is enough to keep us doing it?

I actually use spirituality as oppposed to religion in response to the alleged christians i know. Some walk the walk as well as talking the talk. Being from somewhere with a protestant background they tend to be people that seem to have a personal relationship with God, as they present it (but I have met Roman Catholic's who fall into this camp too). Some think their religion is about going to church on Sunday and listening to the Priest. Churchianity is my polite term for it. Going to church is all it is about for them (as far as I can tell), and fellowship, loving your neighbour and the like goes out the window.

I know a smaller number of Jews and Muslims (but more pagans) than Christians, and in the other two big religions see the same sort of division but without the cute names. Among some types of Pagans you can see the same things starting to emerge, which saddens me.

Lit, I think you've hit on the biggest reason that religion is so effective at surviving, despite the fact that it has no basis in logic or rationality. Religion claims to be the source of things like love, hope, altruism, tolerance, and most other "good" things which actually have no dependance on religion whatsoever. All of those things exist just as easily without religious belief as they do with religious belief, and I would argue they are more pure without religion.

It's as if someone claimed that they alone were responsible for the air you breath and if you want to keep breathing you need to buy it from them or risk losing it. This is, of course, absurd since air is all around us and is free for the breathing, but most people are afraid to take the chance because they've been so indoctrinated and convinced that it's true. That you, an agnostic, would make the claim that without religion we would lose hope and purpose is a perfect illustration of just how effective it is.

Orwell's concept of "newspeak" is a great corrolary to the way religion works. Words are hijacked and their meanings are changed in service of religon. Morality is a perfect example. Most see the word as having a religious meaning. The truth is, it does not. Organized religion has simply made the claim throughout history to be the origin and source of morality and most people accept it... to the point of ascribing a definition to the word that it doesn't actually have... and to the point that not believing in God is perceived as inherantly immoral.

While religion espouses love, and altruism, and hope, and all those good things, what it is actually selling is the fear of being denied those things. Take tolerance as another example. Judeo-Christian religion supposedly teaches tolerance, but in truth it does more to codify intolerance. The very concept of there being only one true god and one true path to salvation is intolerant by its very nature. Religion is rife with this kind of thing... claiming to teach one thing while actually indoctrinating people in its opposite.

The concept that "God is love" is another great example. This loving god will hurl you into a lake of fire if you don't follow his arbirary laws. That isn't love, it's forced conformity through threat of punishment. It's all a giant bait and switch.

The survival of religion depends largely on a simple fact of human nature... most people are intellectually lazy and gravitate towards the path of least resistance. It's easier just to accept the proffered "truth" rather than risk losing all those things religion claims to be the source of. In truth it's more like religion broke into your house, stole things you already owned, and is now selling it back to you through threat and coersion.

Love, hope, faith, altruism, and all the rest are products of the human mind. They do not have a source outside ourselves. Convincing people that they depend on adhering to a certain belief system is without a doubt the greatest scam in all of human history.

Take these two statements...

"God is love"
"Hell is separation from God"

Two very common and accepted tenets of Christianity. Both sound benign on their own. Together they form a threat... "if you don't believe in god no one will love you."

That is how religion works. Simple... Effective... And completely insidious.

Sorry to all if I didn't make my point clearer. I was never saying that faith/religious sense is the source of love, hope whatever. I was hypothesizing that the same part of our minds that allows these emotions (love, hope, purpose, etc.) is likely the same part that gives some folks a religious belief (in the personal way).

It's my response to Selador's desire that humans not be vulnerable to relgious delusiosn at all. My suspicion (and hell if I know if it's true or not, not that up on neurophysiology), is that the same mechanism that allows us faith, may be part and parcel (not the source) of a general facility for other more positive things like hope and purpose that are not entirely constrained by logic.

Chip, I will grant some folks may try to tie these things to religion as the source, but this threat, particulary when you talk about the "intellectually lazy" is more an issue with institutionailzed religion than personal, and of course perhaps a too common tendency to accept said religious authority. But I do not believe I am guilty of such Orwellian conditioning.

You make the assumption that relgious belief is like love, hope, and purpose... enough like it that the same areas of the brain that produce those things also likely produce religious belief. I disagree. I think that religious belief is a dependance and it's relation to those things is parasitic... in the same way that a drug addiction can make people incapable of feeling happinness without the drug. The drug isn't produced naturally by the brain. It acts on those parts of the brain but does not originate there.

Organized religion has been so successful at creating that dependance that even people who are turned off by it still feel the need for some sort of "spirituality." I see this as simply a byproduct of the same tactics that keep people believing in organized religion. It's still the product of indoctrination even though on the surface you think you've rejected it.

I know all of this sounds harsh and I apologize if I offend you. This is just truly how I see it. It's something that I've given a great deal of thought to.
It's impossible for me to honestly express what I believe to be true about the nature of religious belief without offending a lot of people.

As for as the interdependencies of a neuro "God box", I have no idea, it's just a thought, and if disproven really does nothing to affect my personal beliefs (or lack there of), it's more of a devil's advocate "be careful what you wish for" thing.

I'm not sure how a "hope that there is something beyond the physical universe" is parasitic. Or at least any more so than a real world hope. The big "religious" questions likely predate any powerful religious institutions. Have said religious institutions become rather powerful and pernicious at exploiting them, yes. Just as the advertising industry has proven rather effective at exploiting real world hopes and senses of purpose. So are our hopes to get the girl/guy, live a more comfortable/convenient life parasitic as well? The ad agencies can easily be called parasitic, but your argument would suggest that the real world hopes are parasitic as well. Where do we draw that line? An easy one would be where we logically prove things, I think most hopes dreams and sense of purpose would fail that test just as much as religious beliefs.

Yes, I am agnostic, I don't believe you can prove anything beyond this universe (particularly a deity), ether way, period. I'll admit that I hope there is something else, seems better than non-existance, but I have no logical reason to believe it, and I do not have the faith to make that leap (and switch from agnosticism). "Religion" didn't implant the fear of non-existance in me, it was already there, as it likely is for many. But is it enough to sign up and sing the praises of religion. For me, no, cause I know that fear can bias said decision.

As for the nature of that "beyond", hell if I know. Detailed descriptions as provided by religious authorities leave me cold, if you can't prove God, trying to prove his hair color or ultimate intentions is largely speculation, to me anyway. For others, the issue is a little more complicated.

The concept of asking the big questions in a personal "religious" sense is the antithesis of religious institutional power that you are rightly concerned about. But asking the questions and coming to one's own conclusions, unless the conclusion leads to atheism, is still proof of indoctrination in your mind? While I may find some religious beliefs silly, and I often suspect as you do that sometimes it just is religious indoctrination, when it seems they have given some thought to it and are honestly looking for answers, I'll try to respect their beliefs wherever they come out, atheist, agnostic or believer, as long as they respect others as well.

It's funny that on the SL boards, it falls to an agnostic to help defend the religious folks against the atheists. On most other boards, it would likely be the reverse. My issue, with both sides, is that both can tend to a sense of self-righteousness that simply pisses me off.

So in your mind I'm still indoctrinated (even though I have given quite a lot of thought to my position as well). As for those with religious beliefs, well, if you can't say anything nice about someone... Okay, fine, it's all about personal exploration anyway, if Chip thinks Lit is an idiot*, and Lit thinks Chip is rather too sure of himself, frankly, neither of us really has to care.

Though if you'd like to continue the "parasitic" argument further, I'm game, it's intriguing.

*DISCLAIMER: Chip, I know you didn't call me an idiot, but your logic taken further would likely put me in a relatively broad category of "idiot", on this issue anyway. I can live with that, since our impressions about the opposing sides are usually not terribly charitable, but as long we tolerate each other, who the hell cares.

I absolutely agree that the questions religion tries to answer predate religion as the answer. I think the root of religious belief lies in what's called "the God of the gaps." It's the simplest answer to questions for which there are no answers... or insufficient knowledge to properly frame the questions in the first place. That which cannot easily be explained is magic. The root of all religious belief systems are the various creation myths which seek to answer the fundamental quandaries of human existance... how did we get here? why are we here? what comes after? what came before?

As our knowledge and technology grows and expands through science and our ability to frame the questions in more meaningful and answerable ways increases, why hasn't science supplanted religion as the means for providing the answers? I believe the answer to that question lies in what I've said in my previous posts about the pervasive nature of religion. The purpose of religion became bigger than simply answering those profound questions of existance. It also became the glue that bound early societies together. It became the foundation for laws and governance before those things started to become secular. When our societies were tribal and weren't melting pots of various ethnic origins there was no need for those things to be secular. There were advantages to being xenophobic and for the world to be imagined purely in "us versus them" terms. These ethnocentricities became codified into the religious frameworks of early societies. Every religion teaches distrust of outsiders, or instructs believers to convert them. Religion reflects tribal societies competing for resources and the need for hierarchies within individual societies to be respected. The same myths that provided answers to those fundamental questions became systems of reward and punishment to reinforce societal hierarchies. This is where the parallels to advertising come into play. The way for early rulers to convince their subjects to be loyal was to convince the masses that they were one step closer to God and that respecting the authority of the ruling class was tantamount to respecting the authority of the supreme being or beings. If God is the arbiter of both good and bad things happening then it stands to reason that the most effective hedge against the bad things is a good relationship with those people between you and God on the hierarchical ladder.

Take the roots of Christianity for example... In Jerusalem the most powerful people before the Roman occupation were the temple priests. Jesus was a revolutionary who wanted to overthrow the Roman occupation. How do you get people to follow you? You convince them that you speak directly for God. By claiming to be the son of God, Jesus put himself above the temple priests in the framework of their societal hierarchy. Without the son of God bit Jesus would be just your average Ghandi-esque rabble rouser. He had some brilliant ideas, but if he were not perceived as the son of God would people still follow him today? I doubt it very much.

In the need to establish some sort of rule of law and to convince individuals to abide by them and respect the hierarchy, religion and the concept of God was a convenient and effective tool and the people who ascended to the highest positions of power were those that best convinced everyone else that they were in closer contact with God, and more of an authority on the will of God. This worked by exploiting the same needs that spawned religious mythology in the first place... the need for answers to unanswerable questions... the need to distill the world down from being mostly full of things we did not understand to being somehow ordered... fear of death. From this grew all the tactics I've already mentioned.

So religion started out simply as a means to answer questions and to fill the need for there to be some perception of order. In that respect it wasn't born out of parasitism. It was simply the God of the gaps. It's in the role of societal glue and reinforcement of hierarchies that the parasitic aspects of it evolved. And it's those parasitic aspects that still make people more inclined to imagine the answers to our most profound questions in a religious context rather than a secular one.



Yes, it is. It still comes down to the God of the gaps and the fear of non-existance. There's no logical reason for anything to be considered "spiritual." The very concept of a spirit is religious in nature. I believe that Atheists are the true agnostics because they are comfortable with the fact that the existance of God cannot be proven and therefore cannot provide satisfactory answers to those basic fundamental questions that science still can't answer. Because of that we reject religion as a means of answering those questions. Atheists are not anti-God. That characterization comes from religious people, not from Atheists. By and large Atheists only accept answers that can be proven with evidence and reject answers that can't. If verifiable proof of the existance of God were to surface, Atheists would embrace it and would not find it in conflict with their beliefs... because our beliefs simply require proof.

Agnostics on the other hand aren't truly comfortable with saying "I don't know," even though that's how they are typically characterized. They still hang on to that "maybe" and they frame it in religious terms... spirituality, personal religion, new age thought, etc... they are all still God of the gaps explanations. Even though agnostics admit that they can't be proven they still frame it in a religious context when there's no logical reason to do so. That comes from indoctrination that the answers to those still unanswerable questions likely reside in a religious context. In a vacuum without any infuence from culture and society would you still automatically frame the questions in religious terms for any reasons other than the God of the gaps and a discomfort that there may be nothing more than this one singular life? The concept of a religious framework for answering those questions is learned. We aren't born that way.

First I'll grant pretty much everything said on self-proclaimed religious authority, I generally agree and it's more history than philosophy and not as interesting to me.

To the second section:

From Bartleby.com (Yahoo's default dictionary) for "agnostic":

1a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

Word History:
An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. {and it goes on}

I have also seen definitions of atheism dividing between weak and strong atheism (not having belief in God versus a belief that God does not exist), an interesting distinction.

If "God" came down and provided irrefutable logical proof (what that would be I have no idea), yep, it would make things a lot simpler for all concerned. The weak atheist above and agnostic are hard to separate, as they are both conducive to only what is scientifically provable. The strong atheist is taking a more firm position, in a sense that the unknowable can not exist. A fair position, but not a slam dunk one.

God of the gaps is a pernicious little thing I'll grant. And though I suspect there maybe an absolute boundarie that science can't penetrate (single big bang, "brane" collision, whatever) I actually hope that science can find a way to explain EVERYTHING, I'd rather know the certain answer, no matter it's implications than not know the answer at all.

As for the rest there was a longer section from me, but, at the moment, it just doesn't seem worth arguing anymore.

I've always found the classical definitions to be a bit lacking because I think the final position is less helpful in understanding a person's mindset than how they arrived at it. I consider myself an Atheist. I don't discount the possibility of there being a God, but since there's nothing I consider to be real evidence of any kind I'm comfortable discarding the possibility from the way I try to answer the fundamental questions. I consider it too remote for serious consideration. That could change if evidence turned up.

People who would be considered agnostics are more willing to suspend disbelief in order to more seriously entertain the possibility. It seems to me that the willingness to do that despite the lack of any evidence to justify it is in itself a mild form of belief and the vestiges of indoctrination. There's no other area of the human experience where we are willing to seriously entertain the possibility of something with so little to justify giving it serious consideration.

You can't disprove the existance of the tooth fairy any more than you can disprove the existance of God, so why aren't they on an equal footing? I think the answer has far more to do with cultural conditioning than intellectual veracity. I sometimes wonder if part of the motivation of agnostics is a desire not to offend the millions of believers by holding their belief to the same standards of evidence we hold most everything else to.

I apologize if I sould argumentative or self righteous. I'm just giving my personal opinions. It's quite possible that I'm completely wrong, hehe. Thanks for letting me share my thoughts. This is a great group