It is about repeatedly (though not always) confirmed personal experience
So in the terms in that quotation, agnosticism would be neither belief not disbelief, but, perhaps suspension of judgement or a belief that the question is malformed and therefore unanswerable.
It does seem to be the case that some (many) people don't think the distinction between agnosticism and atheism is important. And indeed, for some purposes, it isn't. But then, for other people, on other occasions, it is.
Not considering something seriously isn't the same as positively a firm disbelief that it is possible.
Can you figure how these are different?
IN the absence of evidence, not believing amounts to the jury still being out. But perhaps out of hte building, rather than still in the deliberation room. I can't see any practical difference.
If I don't believe in the existence of God, any god, because there is no evidence for its existence, what does that makes me? An agnostic, an atheist, an agnostic atheist?
I tend to think this is a veil for trusting your overwrought assumptions in most cases.
I think that you want to understand God's actions before you know him (who is infinite according to the definition of philosophers and the question is, how can the finite know the infinite?), this seems not possible and you attribute an action to him before you understand what his action really is.
Before knowing God, it is not possible to understand his actions, just like before knowing a human being, one cannot understand his actions.
Years ago when George Bush was asked who his favorite philosopher was, he replied (after a bit of thought), Jesus Christ.
One can draw all sorts of conclusions from George's choice, negative or positive, but His teachings provide a way of life that could mitigate all those inequalities. Just a thought.
She told me that she believes it's wrong and struggles with that belief.
The inaccuracy of risk assessment is part of the problem and how measures are taken on the basis of information with inaccuracies.
The FDA has a questionable history of its own. It would be foolish to think it is a reliable source of protection against possible malfeasance by big pharma. After all, there is no question that the big pharma lobby is capable of influencing the presidential appointment of FDA officials. Don't be so certain that the FDA doesn't have greater interests that far outweigh the health concerns of American citizens.
If we had total free will, it would invalidate all scientific knowledge about human behavior since there would be nothing fixed in our behavior.
I'd say that if we have free will, it's very limited. Otherwise it would be an insult to those low-functioning autists and anorexics. It would mean that an anorexic could wake up one day, make a U-turn and say "I'm going to eat as much as I need from now on." Or that a low-functioning autist could suddenly snap out of their autistic personality and become normal. But those things aren't happening. So if free will exists, it must be very limited.
What is wrong with having a religious ideology? Has some law been broken here?
Ok, what do you mean by "God"?
If honest is an adj, is it like tall and short, something we are largely born with, or is it like rich, something we can gain and lose?