When Huxley coined the term agnostic in 1869, his purpose was explicitly clear - he wanted a way to make explicit the difference in his thinking from atheism.

Your analogy to the world being round vs. flat looks to me to be a category error - as this is a statement about the physical universe which can be empirically verified. Definitions of words are ultimately arrived at via consensus - and can change over time. It appears that you and others are either trying to broaden the definition of atheism to incorporate agnosticism - OR - perhaps you are saying that Huxley's definition was somehow flawed and that - even working within the framework of his original definition - agnosticism is a type of atheism. As I've explained I think this is a mistake, since
(a) it goes against the commonly accepted usage of the words - in particular the definition of agnostic has broadened over time to mean being non-commital about something; and
(b) there are some simple alternatives which - at least to my plain language thinking - work equally well.

As to where I got 99.999 . . . %? I did a seat of the pants estimate. To start off with, how many people in the world study philosophy at this level? Difficult to say precisely, but we can make some educated guesses. I'm in the US. The American Philosophical Association website says they have "over 10,000 members". Let's say 10K. Likely there are theologians who also dabble in this stuff. Let's double that to 20K. Then there are students who are currently studying philosophy who may be familiar with this debate. Add another 20K. So now we have 40K people in the US who would follow this conversation and have an opinion - they might agree with you or not. So say 50% agree with your definitions and 50K don't. Back to 20K people in the US who would both understand this conversation and agree with you. To make the math easy I'll bump that up to 30K. Next there are 300M people in the US. So that means 1 in 10,000 Americans would understand this discussion and agree with you. So that's 99.999. I'm assuming this would extend world wide.

But maybe I'm wrong. It happens on a regular basis - just ask my wife. . .

So here's what you could do. Take a random poll of people in the street. Ask them this question: "If a person neither believes nor dis-believes in God, what word would you use to describe their beliefs? Agnostic or Atheist?" I have a high degree of confidence that the overwhelming majority would say Agnostic. You might then try a similar survey and add one more option into the mix. Ask them this question: "If a person neither believes nor dis-believes in God, what word would you use to describe their beliefs? Agnostic, Atheist, or Agnostic Atheist?" I have a high degree of confidence that the overwhelming majority would say "What the heck is an Agnostic Atheist?" :smile:

I've think I've said all I can say on this topic. I'll give you the last word if you want it.

Gentlemen (at least I assume you both identify as male, apologies if I got that wrong :smile: )

Based on your posts you both appear to be reasonably intelligent articulate people. What we have here is a disagreement over how to define the word atheist. Now I'm sort of a kumbaya person, so let me attempt to resolve this peacefully. Let me address you individually.

To @Frank Apisa:
You're an agnostic no matter what Dingo says. Dingo is using the word atheist in the context of a very arcane classification system used by some philosophers to distinguish between various systems of thought regarding religion. Not only that, but I believe there are other arcane classification systems under which you would be agnostic. And no one outside a minuscule insular group of people would ever understand any of this.

I can relate to this on a personal level. I consider myself to be some variation of Ignostic. I have had conversations with folks on the forum who consider this to be a variation of atheism - if I recollect being an Ignostic means I'm a Weak Atheist. My response was that this is tarring me with too braod a brush and that the average person would not understand it.

So if someone on someone on some obscure discussion group prefers to label you as an atheist, big deal. Simply say you disagree and wave your agnostic freak flag on high.

To: @DingoJones::
I understand what you're saying. Your desire to be precise is admirable - please accept this as a sincere complement. The problem I have (and I believe Frank's as well) - is that the word atheist has a very clear (and different) meaning to, umm, 99.99999. . .% of the world's population: it means that you actively deny the existence of God (or any Gods). I'm a plain language guy and your usage contradicts the plain language meaning of the word.

I respectfully suggest that if you used the word non-theist instead of atheist, our differences would disappear.

If you disagree - and if Frank stubbornly insists on calling himself Agnostic? So what? You can continue to lobby for your definitions. Who knows? If you can win, say, 1% of the world's population over to your definitions, maybe I'll change my mind. :smile:

If I'm following correctly, you use the word atheism to refer to any position that does not answer the question of God's existence in the affirmative. I.e., anyone who does not assert some sort of belief and/or knowledge in God is, by definition, an atheist.

You then state that there are many varieties of atheism. I'm aware that there are classification systems to identify different flavors of atheism. Perhaps you stated this somewhere in the back & forth and I missed it (if so, apologies), but what label/classification would you use to identify Frank's position?

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction... — Frank Apisa

Having been on this Forum for several years now - and occasionally posting - I should be used to this sort of discussion. But yet I'm still startled by the, umm. . . . intensity of feelings regarding the correct definition/usage of the words atheist and agnostic.

Yes, yes (I hear you saying) much of philosophy involves definition of terms. But in this case, I submit to all parties that the definitional war has been decided by the general public. The conversations in this thread would be incomprehensible to the average person. If you were to ask the average person on the street to define what an atheist thinks/believes they would most likely say either "That person does not believe in God" or "That person denies that God exists". For agnostic they would most likely say "That person neither believes nor dis-believes in God".

Yes, these are very loose imprecise statements - in fact it seems that we cannot even agree on the definition of the word belief. So I respectfully suggest that people be allowed to choose whatever word best fits their their thinking and then let them give the devilish details. If after hearing the details you feel that a different word would more accurately describe their thinking, then simply say "If someone were to ask me what word to use to label your thinking, I would use a different word. This different word would more accurately describe the details behind your thinking."

But I have to ask, how many truths has he spoken? — NOS4A2

I don't know if anyone has kept a running count of what percentage of his statements are true vs. untrue. Regardless of what the precise percentage is - Trump has made so many untruthful statements that at this point you have to assume that any statement he makes is untrue until it can be independently verified - preferably by 2 sources.

The term “lies” implies an intention to deceive. — NOS4A2

OK, you're correct - I do not know what's going on in his mind. I'll rephrase.

Trump makes factually incorrect statements on pretty much a daily basis. I.e., the words coming out of his mouth - or his tweets - do not correspond to reality.

I can think of at least 3 possible explanations. Maybe you have a 4th (or 5th)

1) He is lying
2) He believes what he is saying
3) He is just making stuff up off the top of his head and doesn't think about it afterwards
4) ???

It's possible that it's some combination of the above.

In either case, I think this behavior is unacceptable for any human being - let alone the POTUS. Maybe you're OK with this, and maybe I'm stupid & naive, but I expect better.

Again I don’t look to politicians for truth. In fact I think it would be idiotic and naive to do so. What I want is leadership and results. — NOS4A2

I expect politicians to spin facts to make events seem less or more favorable to therm.

But -- Call me naive but I expect politicians to avoid telling factually verifiable lies on a daily basis.

The unified Jewish kingdom only existed in the mythical period of Saul, David and Solomon. — David Mo

It's a fascinating part of history. Here's a good starting point.

If these perverse foundations of law became widespread — David Mo

I'll loop around one more time here. You seem be implicitly acknowledging in this sentence that there are (or should be) some rules to govern who should own the land.

As you have correctly noted, the Israeli/Palestinian situation is not unique. While each situation has it's own unique history (and range of solutions) there is still the underlying question - how to resolve disputes over land ownership.

Again - I am not criticizing your positions. My desire is to see a peaceful resolution of the situation - but I acknowledge that this is highly unlikely. I would gladly be wrong, but I see nothing ahead but continued violence.

I'll give you the last word here - if you want it that is. . . .

What seems obvious is that claiming rights from two thousand years ago based on legends would turn the international map into a chaos of claims and struggles. That is the main idea. — David Mo

Firstly - and this is a minor point - these are not legends. There is a clear historical record that there was an autonomous Jewish nation prior to being taken over by Rome.

I agree with your main idea - after 2K years it's too late to go back.

But this does not answer my question - how do we resolve situations where multiple groups of people lay claim to the same physical land? Is there any legal/moral/philosophical/political framework that can be used to untangle these situations?

And can we apply such a framework to help untangle the Israeli/Palestinian situation?

Superficially.
You cannot make casuistry with this problem. You have to analyze different contexts. — David Mo

Absolutely - that's why I used the word superficially

I was just pointing out a blatant similarity. — David Mo

The problem I have with your comparison is that it seems to have things backwards. In your comparison you are equating the Sioux with the Israelis, i.e. the Sioux are not allowed to reclaim their historic homeland. My point was that we should be equating the Sioux with the Palestinians - they are the aggrieved party. Apologies if I was not clear on that.

You cannot make casuistry with this problem. You have to analyze different contexts. — David Mo

Absolutely. But if there are no guidelines/rules/laws at all, then there will be no way to resolve these issues. There has to be some agreed upon structure that all parties can agree upon for discussions to take place. Otherwise it's simply might makes right - the winner makes up the rules to justify their actions.

There is no evidence Schiff was on the hunt for nude photos of the president.

As was reported in The Atlantic, Schiff was prank-called in April 2017 by Russian entertainers claiming to being a leading Ukrainian politician. One of the callers suggested he had evidence that the Russians had compromising material on the president in the form of nude photos. Schiff, then the ranking member on the Intel committee, asked for a few details, and says the FBI would be willing to review a recording the caller claimed to have, according to the magazine.

A Schiff spokesman told The Atlantic they did not trust the callers: “Before agreeing to take the call, and immediately following it, the committee informed appropriate law-enforcement and security personnel of the conversation, and of our belief that it was probably bogus.”

Alerting and invoking law enforcement hardly suggests that Schiff was seeking nude photos for political use.

Can the descendants of ABC fight and kill the descendants of DEF?
If yes, then for how long? — EricH

Even if the Jews lived in Palestine 2000 years ago, their right to occupy Palestine does not exist. No more than the rights of the Great Sioux Nation to occupy Dakota — David Mo

The US waged war against the Sioux, brutally slaughtered them, took away their land which they had occupied for thousands of years, and forced them into what we would now call concentration camps.

Roughly 125 years have passed since those events. By any objective standard the Sioux have suffered at least as much as the Palestinians - if not worse.

So superficially you seem to be answering my question - 125 years is the time limit.

Just to be clear, I am not criticizing your positions on Israel/Palestine. I don't know if it's possible, but I'm trying to take a broader view.

Concerning existence as a predicate, if existence were a predicate, something that does not exist would have the predicate of non-existence, i.e. the negation of the existence predicate, but that is not possible because something that does not exist cannot have any predicates at all. — alcontali

Very interesting. Now I know this is getting on slippery ground, but on first glance it seems like the products of our imagination have predicates. E.g. The word "unicorn" refers to an imaginary mythological creature that has various imaginary properties.

Suppose the narrative is historically accurate?

Let's say there's nation ABC. Now nation DEF conquers nation ABC and rules over the original inhabitants of ABC - i.e., the rights of a specific people (the ABCers) living in a place were stolen, expelled and massacred when they resisted.

Can the descendants of ABC fight and kill the descendants of DEF?

If yes, then for how long? Is there some amount of time after which you say to the descendants of ABC - "Yes, you're historically right, your land was taken away from you, but X number of years have passed. Get over it?"

I posted this earlier in the thread, I'll try again. Rather than argue over the specifics of the situation, I respectfully suggest that you try to deal with this in generic terms. As I see it there are two somewhat related questions that need to be answered:

How do you define a nation?
Put differently, are there any philosophical, ethical, or legal rules/tenets that allow a particular group of people the right to control a particular plot of land - "This land is our land and not your land"

Likely there are likely better ways of phrasing this question.

Issue #2: What laws can a nation pass?
Are there any philosophical, ethical, or legal laws/rules/tenets/principals that limit the power of the people who control a particular plot of land to regulate the behavior of the people who live in that particular plot of land?

Again, there are likely better ways of phrasing this question.

If people can agree on the answers to these questions, then it becomes a matter of applying the rules/laws to the situation.

I do not have answers to either of those questions.

It depends on the context. In religious law, it is an axiomatic belief. — alcontali

To millions (billions?) of people around the world, it is an empirical fact that God is real.

In science, it may apparently look like an empirical question but the falsificationist boundaries of science do not allow for a question that cannot be tested experimentally. — alcontali

This statement (and many others like it) are are exactly the sort of explanations used by people of science to demonstrate to believers that their belief - that God's existence is an empirical fact - is incorrect. These attempts are rarely successful.

No one is arguing that Israel is an egalitarian society. All reasonable people acknowledge that non-Jews are denied many basic rights, are discriminated against and oppresed, and are second class citizens at best.

However, you seem to be re-defining the term "racism". I know that in the academic community race is considered to be a social construct, but (for better of worse) the commonly accepted meaning of the word race is based on physical appearance. Taking the commonly accepted usage, people of any race can be Jewish - blacks, Asian, etc. It isn't easy, but any person of non-Jewish ancestry can become a full fledged Israeli citizen by converting to orthodox Judaism.

I am not disputing any of the facts you have presented. I'm simply suggesting that the tactic of using the word 'racism' is counter-productive. My alternative? Beats me. I wish I were more eloquent. Maybe "ethnic cleansing"?

If you want to know my full position on Israel, please read my previous posts.

That is true. However, there is no way to force any given country to adopt them in their constitution, laws, or international treaties. To my knowledge, the US has not legally adopted it as a treaty.

There are two separate issues going on in this discussion - and it's a bit hard to untangle then given the history.

Issue #1: How do you define a nation?
Put differently, are there any philosophical, ethical, or legal rules/tenets that allow a particular group of people the right to control a particular plot of land - "This land is our land and not your land"

Likely there are likely better ways of phrasing this question.

Issue #2: What laws can a nation pass?
Are there any philosophical, ethical, or legal rules/tenets/principals that limit the power of the people who control a particular plot of land to regulate the behavior of the people who live in that particular plot of land?

Again, there are likely better ways of phrasing this question.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I do not have any answers to these questions.

I will note that for #1, the currently existing mechanism is via the United Nations.

For #2, there is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, there is no enforcement mechanism.

I am deeply pessimistic about the future of Israel. I don't see any workable solution - the two sides are too far apart. They're gonna have to get sick & tired of killing each other before any compromise is possible.

Of course, at the rate things are going, global warming & the associated climate change will likely make the whole region uninhabitable - thus solving the problem.

It would make me very happy to be wrong about all this.

I'm a non-religious Jew. My best friend in college was an ardent Zionist. In 1972 he spent a year in Israel traveling around and working on a kibbutz. When he came back he said to me: "We [meaning us Jews] blew it. We should never have tried to move into a place with a large hostile population. We should have moved into Tierra del Fuego - or maybe Newfoundland".

I feel conflicted about Israel. I empathize with the emotions that drive Zionism. I remember feeling so proud as a teenager after the '67 War - we took on the enemy and crushed them - and if there were ever another war I would be rooting for Israel. A defeat would be catastrophic.

That said, my feeling is that an historical mistake was made by making Israel the country of the Jewish people. It could have been declared a Jewish homeland (i.e. preserve the Right of Return) but otherwise a secular democracy. Whether this would have worked is anyone's guess.

As it is, Israel is never going to be a "safe space" - and the fate of the Palestinian people is an ongoing tragedy with no end in sight.

However, I think this is a bit defeatist. With such an attitude, science will not progress. — Devans99

It looks like you misinterpreted me. What I said was that we cannot base our understanding of time based upon the way our brain perceives it - this also applies to our understanding of gravity, quantum mechanics, etc. If we ever come to an understanding of these issues, it will most likely come through years (decades? centuries? millennia?) of continued scientific research - or whatever scientific research evolves into.

We understand time and causality well enough to draw some initial conclusions — Devans99

This notion of causality has no place in physics. I can speak from experience as I was a physics major in college - albeit not a very good physicist. I can assure you that the notion of causality never appeared in my 4 years of undergraduate study. I did encounter it when I took Philosophy 101 & 102. However, this philosophical concept of causality does not correspond to reality at the atomic and sub-atomic levels. Events happen with no prior measurable or discernible "cause" whatsoever.

As far as time goes, it appears - based on our current understanding - that time started with the big bang some 13 odd billion years ago. However, that knowledge is *very* preliminary - and we cannot draw any other conclusions from it.

I have no idea what you're getting at with the hamsters. I also have no illusions that I will change your mind.

I'll give you the last word here - if you want it that is :smile:

I trust my mental faculties to function properly within its limited capabilities.

Mankind in its current state has been on this planet for roughly 40,000 years or so. It is only within the last 100 years that we have become aware of the immensity of the universe we live in - and there are still vast gaps in our knowledge. If history is any guide, it is likely that much of our scientific knowledge of the universe will prove to be partially true and will be superseded by more encompassing theories. For all we know, the entire observable universe could be a microscopic pimple on something much larger.

To think that we can unravel the mystery of time based on the functionality of our advanced monkey brains is a case of hubris. We must be humble and acknowledge our limitations.

Thoughts flow in the mind. There are past thoughts, a present thought and future thoughts. — Devans99

Respectfully suggest that you re-read and absorb what @Seditious has to say. Your reasoning is based

on the assumption that the human perception of the linear progression of time is inherently correct and trustworthy. — Seditious

Your brother-in-law's experience is, unfortunately, all too common. As a recently retired programmer I can speak from experience. The ability to be a good programmer is something you either have or do not have. Many of the people I worked side by side with had non-technical backgrounds - musicians, English majors, people from other science disciplines, and even (gasp!) philosophy majors.

That said, a good education can help. I got my graduate degree in CS. Very little of what I learned in school had any direct bearing on the things I encountered in the real world - and with 20/20 hindsight I could have stopped after I got my first job. However the courses I took in data structures, programming languages, math (e.g. set theory) gave me an advantage over my compatriots.

I think Popeye expressed things very well

Just extend his sentiments to "x" OR "apple" OR whatever :smile:

Let me amend my previous post, On re-thinking it, it does not even make sense to assert believe(undefined-G). Instead of believe(undefined-G) it is simpler to say G=Undefined (or null) and that G cannot be the operand of any function.

I'm OK with being labeled as non-theist (I have no theistic beliefs), but I feel like your category schema is forcing me to take a position that I do not agree with.

That said, I think my other objection is more of a practical affair. This fine tuning of definitions works in a philosophical discussion, but it has little real life value. If you were at, say, a family gathering or in some casual social context - you are going to get blank stares if you try to explain this stuff - that and likely people will avoid you for the rest of the evening :razz: . The average person has basic notions of atheism (deny that God exists) and agnosticism (not sure) - so if it comes up in conversation I will stick with calling myself an Ignostic - it's pretty easy to explain.

Also - instead of saying that religious language is emotive, I prefer to say that it is a type of poetry. I suppose there's a lot of overlap between the two.

I'll give you the last word.

I understand what you're saying, but I disagree with the reasoning. From my perspective, you are limiting the range of possibilities.

Let "G" be the proposition "God exists", whatever that means: — Pfhorrest

Firstly, this does not appear to be a proposition. If we were to say "G" is the proposition "Qwerty exists", it would be reasonable to ask for a definition of "Qwerty", and if no coherent definition is provided you would be justified in saying that there is nothing to believe or dis-believe.

However, even if you are allowing these sort of statements into your system, then you have to go into some sort of tri-valued logic. So in addition to believe(G), not-believe(G), believe(~G), it is reasonable add believe(undefined-G) into your approach.

Thanks for the reply. I may be mis-reading you, but there seems to be an inconsistency.

weak atheism is the broad category of anything that isn't theism — Pfhorrest

Weak atheists don't believe in any gods — Pfhorrest

Ignosticism falls into that first definition, but not the second. I'm OK with saying that I'm not a theist. But I would not say that I don't believe in any gods. I consider that to be an incoherent position.

Perhaps you could say that there are two broad categories - theism and non-theism? Then weak/strong atheism, ignosticism, agnosticism, etc would all fall under the broad category of non-theism?

Theists believe in at least one god
Weak atheists don't believe in any gods
Strong atheists believe there are no gods — Pfhorrest

I’m jumping in here with a little trepidation as I’m likely in way over my head in this conversation - so please indulge my amateur efforts.

We briefly discussed this in another thread, so continuing that conversation. I don’t see myself as fitting into any of these categories. When I use the word “God”, I am referring to a character who appears in various works of mythology. Like many fictional characters, God has supernatural powers; more specifically, while God somehow (in a manner that is never explained) resides in an imaginary non-physical spiritual realm, God has the ultimate super power ability to (among other things) create and have complete control of the physical universe that we live in.

So to ask “ Does God exist” is no different than asking “Does Harry Potter exist”. My response to these questions is “Why are you asking me if fictional characters exist?” The very definitions of the words make the question incoherent. It’s somewhat analogous to asking (to use well known examples) “Does quadruplicity drink procrastination” or “Do colorless green dreams sleep furiously?”

Furthermore, unlike Harry Potter, the fictional God does not even physically exist in the fictional world - so the character is doubly incoherent (assuming that multiple nonsenses multiply and are not exponential :smile: )

I’m aware of two schools of thought on this topic (there may be more but I’ll limit myself to the ones I sort of understand). One school of thought says, in essence, “Dammit Jim, quadruplicity does not drink procrastination”. If I'm following, this would be a strong atheist position. The other approach - which I agree with - says that you cannot assert truth values to or coherently discuss nonsense sentences. I’m not seeing where this fits into one of these categories. So here I'm adding one more bullet point to your list:

• Theists believe in at least one god
• Weak atheists don't believe in any gods
• Strong atheists believe there are no gods
• ??? says that there is nothing to believe or not believe. Give me a coherent definition of the word "god(s)", then I’ll think it over.

I could be mistaken but I think this somewhat aligns with either Ignosticism or theological noncognitivism.

I see your point. I was trying to answer your question:

Why are you talking about cysts? — frank

Most discussions about abortion (e.g., this discussion) eventually lead to questions regarding the legality of preventing the blastocyst from being embedded in the endometrium. Hence the discussion about "cysts".

Does this resemble a tiny human? My eyes are not what they used to be, but I think not.

Every physicist in the world has been taught that Newton's third law of motion is also called Newton's Law of Cause and Effect. How can you verify my claim that Newton's third law is commonly called Newton's Law of Cause and Effect? Let me Google that for you.
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Newton%27s%20law%20of%20cause%20and%20effect%22 — Ron Cram

I was a Physics major as an undergrad (albeit not a very good one). I can assure you that the expression "Cause and Effect" was never once mentioned in any of my classes. I checked out your link. My eyesight is not what it used to be, but I did not say a single textbook amongst them.

"Cause and Effect" (AKA causality) is strictly a philosophical term that has no place in Physics.

That said, Cause & Effect is a highly useful concept in our day to day lives - I rely on it to keep my pants from falling off.

Guilty as charged

I literally :lol: That was one of the funniest posts I've seen in a long time.

For some reason, these discussions always seem to ignore ignosticism and it's twin sibling theological noncognitivism.

“The moon was a ghostly galleon tossed upon cloudy seas”

I like to think that I appreciate poetry as much as the next person on the street. You can do cool things with poetry that you can’t do with plain language or logic. I remember The Highwayman by Alfred Noyes as one of the first poems I was taught in school. Besides having alliteration, this line has one of the all time classic metaphors. “The moon was a ghostly galleon”. You can picture it in your minds eye. Oooh - nice one there Alfred.

But of course we all recognize that this is a poem - and in reality the moon is most definitely not a ghostly galleon; it’s a giant hunk of rock orbiting around the earth roughly once every 28 days.

So when we look at your posts, we see a series of metaphors & images - but nothing that connects with reality.

Does the word "God" - as you are using it in this discussion - represent any physical being or object in the universe? Please choose one of the following answers:

1. Yes
2. No
. . .
. . .

1.Both.

Existentially, my limited ability to reason accurately, leaves me with saying both. To that end, and maybe in a fun kind of way, the concept of God is: God is a mottled color of truth. — 3017amen

I'm comfortable with half-truth's existing. Which of course they do, right? — 3017amen

Umm, no. Truths do not exist, half truths do not exist, and lies do not exist. Physical objects exist.

Pretty much everything you are saying falls into the same trap - the words may sound pretty to you, but there is no logic, no reason, and unfortunately no rhyme (which might at least make what you’re saying fun to read).

I much prefer @PoeticUniverse's musings. @PoeticUniverse, if you’re reading this, I would be honored if you could make a poem out of what I'm saying.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

All that said, I am not telling you to abandon your beliefs. I was not aware of Christian Existentialism until you brought it up, so I have learned something new from this exchange. If your beliefs help you to make sense of your life and give you comfort, far be it from me to tell you otherwise. Compared to the more fundamentalist religions of the world, your beliefs seem relatively harmless.

I am under no illusions that you will read this and say to yourself, “Oh no - everything I’ve believed in all my life is wrong”. But try to accept that all religion beliefs are irrational and have no basis in reality.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

And all that said, I actually agree in part with some of your critiques of Atheism. But as an Ignostic I have no skin in this particular game. And so I will leave you with the last word. . . .

As other folks on this thread have been telling you in different ways, until you can give reasonably clear definitions of the words "God" and "exist" your position is incoherent and meaningless.

I'm comfortable with half-truth's existing. — 3017amen

Do you see? You keep using the word "exist(s)" and "existing" - but as it stands, this sentence is just a bit of poetic whimsy with no meaning. Defining your terms is the first step.

You've been very insistent that folks give you a specific answer to the question "Does God exist".

But words have meaning. If you want an answer to your question, you need to give clear and coherent definitions of the words "God" and "exists". This is what I am attempting to get from you (so far unsuccessfully).

Just e.g., here is a good definition of the word as I use it exists