Hi, been getting busy as of late.
InterestedOne: Dawkins and Hitchens..noted thanks.
Terry: Not surprisingly that makes sense, I need to arm myself better to understand the knowledge presented I will definitely look at Epistemology, it might deserve another thread but I left the formal education system when I was 12, but I'm keen on making my way towards University.
thetrueone: So ancient set forth ideas of origin of life in an attempt to explain their own existence, and these evolved and still evolve today. Dominant world powers obviously having an advantage in the growth and spread of their particular brand of ideas on existence. Its really an interesting subject in itself, I recall looking at a thread on the origin of YHWH with leolaia and meqabber I think, the little I absorbed made sense.
OTWO: " If I accept the label "Atheist" it means what I feel it means. " I agree 100%. If I ever had to label myself an Atheist it would mean to me that I don't believe there is a God and there isn't a chance it could be proven otherwise. So if it is impossible to prove a Negative I wouldn't ever be able to label myself an Atheist because of what Atheism means to me.
I like how the Gentleman below puts it.
Thomas Henry Huxley defined the term:
Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle... Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.
So if I couldn't demostrate the existence or Non-existence of God to myself I would have to be Agnostic.
Sorry for the Copy/Paste, but if found this enlightening, where Dawkins classifies himself as an Athiest but expresses his Agnosticism. So once again what the label means to you.
Atheist
According to Richard Dawkins, a distinction between agnosticism and atheism is unwieldy and depends on how close to zero we are willing to rate the probability of existence for any given god-like entity. Since in practice it is not worth contrasting a zero probability with one that is nearly indistinguishable from zero, he prefers to categorize himself as a "de facto atheist". He specifies his position by means of a scale of 1 to 7. On this scale, 1 indicates "100 per cent probability of God." A person ranking at 7 on the scale would be a person who says "I know there is no God..." Dawkins places himself at 6 on the scale, which he characterizes as "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there", but leaning toward 7. About himself, Dawkins continues that "I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden." [40] Dawkins also identifies two categories of agnostics; Temporary Agnostics in Practice (TAPs), and Permanent Agnostics in Principle (PAPs). Dawkins considers temporary agnosticism an entirely reasonable position, but views permanent agnosticism as "fence-sitting, intellectual cowardice."
freydo: http://www.hurr-durr.com/
Morbidzbaby: Thanks for your response, of course its each ones journey and I can't say where mine will lead. We all carry Bias with us hopefully at some point I will come to a conclusion although I doubt it will be black and white, cut and dry it might be more what it means to me.
binadub: In hindsight my personality type isn't very relevant but it was mentioned to give posters that respond an idea how I view things and arguments or ideas presented in a rational or logical manner will have more effect than a personal opinion or strong viewpoint thrown in randomly. Also If you could mention the secular perspectives I could note them down for later, aswell in what way do mean viable?
Thank you for all the responses, i will book mark the thread and work through the info given as time permits.
Twisty
