X=God or gods exist
‘X is true’=theism
‘X is false’= atheism
‘X is either true or false but I don’t know which’=agnosticism
There are more positions.
‘X is either true or false but it is unknowable which’=scepticism?
‘X doesn’t make sense’=verificationism?
‘X may not make sense’=?
‘X may or may not be true and may or may not make sense, all seem equally likely and I feel better not thinking about it’= Pyrrhonism
‘‘X is true’ and ‘X is false’ are pragmatically indistinguishable’=Epicureanism?
These positions do not all mutually exclude. It is possible to be agnostic or sceptic and nonetheless hold a belief that X is true or that X is false. It is possible to believe X and, modestly, that the belief may be incoherent. It is possible to behave as if X is true and either believe it isn’t or not believe it is (not have a belief
The first hurdle is understanding X. What is god? ‘Uncreated creator’ is kinda coherent: maybe science can help with that. ‘Higher and caring intelligence that can affect the natural order’? I struggle.

Jerry’s ‘I do not believe that no gods exist and I do not believe that some god exists’ at the start of this thread is closest to Pyrrhonism.

Further to 'understanding X' in previous post: what does 'exist' mean? If by definition God is outside nature, what kind of existence are we talking about?

more importantly in the above - what does "true" mean. Can it be true as a matter of fact only? Can it be true as reasoned belief ? Can it be true as a matter of faith ?

do your thoughts exist ? does your understanding of love, hate, fairness, exist ? all are outside nature as i think you are using it

The first hurdle is understanding X. What is god? ‘Uncreated creator’ is kinda coherent: maybe science can help with that. ‘Higher and caring intelligence that can affect the natural order’? I struggle — Pronsias del Mar

I agree - i think the best reasoned argument can only defend a position that at least at one moment of time - there was an un-created creator or necessary being - belief in the God of the bible, or Torah, or Koran is a belief by faith - outside of reason

I think the popular opinion is that Atheism is actually the belief there is no god rather then lack of belief in a god.

At least that's how militant Atheists come off to me.

If you ever want to see militant Agnostics look up the South Park episode where Kenny goes to a foster home with strict Agnostic parents. It's a laugh.

I think it's useless to use the term at face value. I like percentages much more. Although one doesn't calculate them with math, everybody has a ballpark. So, the question is: "On a scale from 0% to 100%, with 0% being an absolute conviction that God doesn't exist, and 100% being an absolute conviction that God exists, where would you say you are?"

Agnostic is at 50%.

An agnostic is a wavering religious person, changing their beliefs based on current events.

An atheist understands the world without a God, and has no doubts which crop up when things get bad.

Would a person of 30, normal intelligence disbelieve in Santa because

1 He didn't get the gift that he wanted?
2 The world makes no sense without the Santa Claus mythos?
3 Because he was told that Santa Claus is not real?
4 Because most people don't believe in Santa?

I believe that he doesn't believe in Santa because he understands the world and what Santa really is.

I suspect that it's just that some people like the sound of the word "Atheist", and want to have that self-designation while dodging the burden-of-proof that goes with actual Atheism..

The problem with such "Agnatheists" is that typically in the next breath they're making genuinely Atheist assertions. So, in a way they're right to call themselves Atheists: They're Atheists except when they're professing Agnosticism by another name.

Obviously an assertion of Atheism or Theism has equal burden of proof. But it isn't a matter for assertion, argument, debate or proof. ...not that we let that stop us, right?

Michael Ossipoff

I think the popular opinion is that Atheism is actually the belief there is no god rather then lack of belief in a god.

At least that's how militant Atheists come off to me. — Sum Dude

Anybody having the zeal to promote and explain his religious views, especially trying to counter other views sounds like a preacher to me.

I feel insulted when agnostics are grouped with atheists. They are very different. An agnostic is a confused, wavering intelligence with no meaningful lasting conclusions.

A %100 religious person is more similar to an atheist.They both are thoughtful, have a definite set of answers, are unwavering, They just happened to get a different answer.

The insulting phrase "there are no atheists in foxholes" is typical of an agnostic, not an atheist.