they should have a term like they do for sexuality

when people have been into one gender but are 'curious' about another,,, they call it bi curious

I wonder what would be a trem for those who had one belief/non belief system, but become curious about another,,,lol



good luck on your attempts to find out more,,,,

:


Simon,If you have any questions, feel free to ask.


You are wanting to know....that is already taking the first step .

We should coin a new word for it...

binostic
ambithesis
lost <-- lol

Why do you have to label it though? That's my point, we're trying to label everything. Leave it simply as, interested or curious. Or use my word 'lost' instead

But yes, I am really interested to find out how those made a decision to believe, when they didn't before.

Info from a trusted site:

Think this may help....


http://www.gotquestions.org/correct-religion.html

there are several dictionaries and several definitions for each word in each dictionary. mh cited one definition for each word. in fact there are categories of atheisim, strong atheist, weak atheist, etc., and few atheist would use the word 'belief', as mh's chosen definition does, in describing their thoughs on god's existance.



hey, you began a thread in an open religious forum. expect anything.



k. here's a story about finding god. found him listening to my parents as a child. lost him after returning from vietnam.

not knowing does not make you agnostic. agnostic means unknown AND UNKNOWABLE. you obviously think that you can know god as that is the entire thrust of your original post. agnosticism actualy has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. gnostic means knowledge or what is knowable. agnostic, just the oposite. albert einstein often said that the human brain was incapable of knowing anything absolutely.

i'd put you in the category of 'weak atheist'. one who does not think there is convincing evidence for god but who could be convinced if evidence were produced. an agnostic thinks no such evidence can ever be produced.



simple really. they don't know now. they believe. were you a true agnostic you'd realize that one can only know that which he experiences himself.

we don't. you and mh brought up dictionary definitions for labels.

ahh mr negative returns to the thread.

The reason for asking the confirmation of the 2 words, is because Mingle2 only gives you those options, Non-Believer, Atheist, Agnostic and then different religions. There's no middle ground with 'weak' or 'pure'.

So let me get this right, you know me better than I do? You're calling me a weak Atheist, but that is a non-believer and not even capable of believing. I never said that. According to the dictionary, if I am either Agnostic or an Atheist, then I fall under Agnostic, or if you want to call it 'weak Agnostic', then go ahead. As I am uncertain of the link between not believing one day and then beieving the next. So I am openly saying it is possible there is a God, I just haven't found him myself.

This is why I posted in an open relgious forum, to learn and understand how each individual believe that they found God.

So you go ahead and call me what you think is correct, but I will disagree because this is me, what we're talking about anyway and I get final say

i've never agreed with this description. i think 'agnostic atheist' to be a misnomer. as you yourself quoted, agnosticism regards what in unknown AND UNKNOWABLE meaning there can be no evidence. and dawkins has everybody screwed up on these definitions.

lol@ lost

good one

mr. negative? and you want civil discourse without labels?



well being one who does not allow mingle or anybody else provide my options i wouldn't know. i choose my options.



and i never said that. called you nothing whatsoever. simply gave you my take on how you described your thinking. i don't consider what is and is not 'capable of believing' as you put it. your words, not mine.



and as such, you don't meet my definition of an agnostic nor any dictionary definition that i'd accept. that you think it possible to one day know god suggests that you think god is knowable. and yet agnostic refers to the UNKNOWN AND UNKNOWABLE.



and now you have my take on the topic.



seems you're the only one here calling anybody anything. 'mr. negative' as i recall. you'll have the final say when i'm done sayin'.

I've read through some of your posts and you really do across very negative. Maybe that's your take on life.

"you'll have the final say when i'm done sayin'." I might have to hint you're coming across a little childish aswell. It's almost sounding like... I am right, you are wrong. I am bigger, you are weaker.

I would ask you to kindly keep out of my thread, but I doubt that would happen, so I`ll have to ignore you instead

I find it interesting you're the only person that disagree with this, but to each his own.

oh, if i sound negative as regards religion then you indeed do have me pegged. i see religious dogma as one of the most if not the most causual effects of most of what's wrong with humans in general. i go out of my way to attack religion as others might attack desease or polution simply because i think the world would be a healthier and more peaceful place to live were religious dogma that was the source of the crusades, the inquisition, the salem witch trials and now this jihad we must all endure were all brought into the light that it deserves.



you're the one who's resorted to name calling. and now we can add your use of 'childish'.



you don't own this or any thread. mingle does. this thread is part of an open forum. when you post in open forum you can expect openness, not simply what suits you. and yes, indeed. you do have a little scroll wheel on that mousey thingy. works great for scrolling right on past posts you'd care to ignore. and after all this arguement you're just now discovering that???

i do pride myself on my unique perspective on most things. when i begin to agree with everyone else, i'll worry about my sanity.

This is just a little friendly reminder. Yes these forums are open but no one is allowed to attack others or they will in fact be asked to move on.

Please make sure that all comments are directed to the Topic and not at other members.

Sometimes it comes to the point that one must learn to agree to disagree and move away from the subject.

Make sure that all comments are within a debate not as an attack.

Any post after this reminder that are against the site rules will be deleted and further action will be taken.

Site Mod
Kristi

Not suggesting agree with everyone else on something that's improbable, but we both know the agnosticism which deals with knowledge and atheism deals with disbelief. to say that because you don't never know doesn't mean a person have to believe or shouldn't believe, hence where theism and atheism comes in. For instance, if someone asked me if i like to play football and i never played, i can say "i don't know if i would like football or not, but i think i might like it", this is why i say they're not mutually exclusive, i get your point on the misnomer part, but you can't negate the fact that they generally can be attached.

My question more so is this, there are people who wholeheartedly believe in God, but don't know for certain one exist. Then there are people who will blow themselves up because they're convinced with a shadow of doubt that there God told them to do so and that it's factually he/she/it exists, whether that is true or not needs to bear some distinction and that is where Gnosticism come in and agnosticism come in.

This is why i sometimes get itchy with agnosticism, because if everybody went by the agnostic route nothing can be proven/disprove, so anyone can propose that all the other million Gods exists and i'm sure a lot of people are not agnostic about those Gods, whether you agree with what i said, i think that narrows my view on the topic and i guess we can go back to the OP.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/

Good info.

I use to be a lurker on that site, good stuff. I'm entrenched in reddit.com/r/atheism now.

Ha! I've been avoiding that site due to time. I'd be in trouble getting to wander around and keep up with it all!