Agnostic atheism

Originally posted by @secondson
Agnostic atheism is a philosophical position held by those that base that belief on unknown information.

Not a rational position to hold when there's no evidence for it.

The onus is on you to prove the existence of the divine beings you believe in.

Originally posted by @secondson
"If a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God;.."

The operative word in that assertion is 'failed'.

Atheism is the failure of the church

Originally posted by @secondson
Not believing, based on the idea that there is a lack of "credible information", is the subjective response to a negative, which is irrational.

To simply say "I don't know" would be the honest rational response when one fails to see and understand the meaning of the credible information that exists around him.

People of all religions, not just yours, insist that there is credible information that exists around them that makes their religion the true one and its competitors false.

Originally posted by @fmf
For me personally, it is, in a way, because it was me self-identifying as an agnostic atheist on another thread that has given rise to this thread.

Then personally, you're basing your belief on the lack of knowledge, which isn't logical.

You're basing your belief on a negative. The lack of evidence, as evidence for belief, is not rational.

Just be honest with yourself and simply say you don't really know one way or the other.

Until one has undeniable observable and objective evidence for or against holding a position one should just be honest and say they don't know.

Originally posted by @secondson
Perhaps your failure to be objective is the cause of your inability to debate rationally.

I note that you are attempting to put me in my place. I take it you are very, very earnest about your religious beliefs ~ and someone not subscribing to them in the way you do makes you ever so slightly upset. Right? 😉

Originally posted by @fmf
The onus is on you to prove the existence of the divine beings you believe in.

No it isn't.

I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make him drink.

Originally posted by @rajk999
Atheism is the failure of the church

Atheism is a choice.

You may as well call atheism God's failure. Blithering babbler.

Originally posted by @secondson
Then personally, you're basing your belief on the lack of knowledge, which isn't logical.

You're basing your belief on a negative. The lack of evidence, as evidence for belief, is not rational.

Just be honest with yourself and simply say you don't really know one way or the other.

Until one has undeniable observable and objective evidence for or against holding a position one should just be honest and say they don't know.

I 'studied' Christianity for a very long time. And I have had the opportunity to look at Islam and Hinduism fairly closely over a long period of time. I don't really have trouble with "knowledge" about these religions, per se.

I don't think you have "undeniable observable and objective evidence for" the claims you and other Christians make about the identity of Jesus and the significance of his life. Yours is just another religion.

I am waiting for the god or gods that I believe may well possibly exist to reveal themselves to me. Until then I am an agnostic atheist because I do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and I believe the existence of any such deity is currently an unknown.

Originally posted by @fmf
People of all religions, not just yours, insist that there is credible information that exists around them that makes their religion the true one and its competitors false.

Then don't mistake the truth for the lie.

Originally posted by @secondson
I can lead a horse to water, but I can't make him drink.

There is no water where you want to lead me. I've been there. And we are both being completely subjective about that water. No amount of sincerity on your part can turn your subjectivity into objectivity.

Originally posted by @secondson
Then don't mistake the truth for the lie.

"Lie"? Oh dear. OK, then. Tell me what's on your mind.

Originally posted by @fmf
I 'studied' Christianity for a very long time. And I have had the opportunity to look at Islam and Hinduism fairly closely over a long period of time. I don't really have trouble with "knowledge" about these religions, per se.

I don't think you have "undeniable observable and objective evidence for" the claims you and other Christians make about the identit ...[text shortened]... he existence of any deity and I believe the existence of any such deity is currently an unknown.

Fair enough.

But still you "do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity" based on the lack of knowledge.

Not an enviable position.

Originally posted by @secondson
You're basing your belief on a negative. The lack of evidence, as evidence for belief, is not rational.

To me, the "lack of evidence" difficulty falls on your side; insisting that you have enough to satisfy you and therefore everyone who isn't satisfied by it is not being "objective" and "rational" is mere message board bluster.

Originally posted by @secondson
But still you "do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity" based on the lack of knowledge.

"Knowledge" of which retail religion, yours?

Originally posted by @philokalia
So what's the background here?

Why should I care about this entry in Wikipedia?

Without meaning to sound overly disrespectful I doubt whether most posters are bothered about whether you care about the wiki entry or not, as the creator of this thread I certainly don’t.