But it is interesting you were 'never an atheist' - it reminds me of Christians who play Devils' advocates, undermining their own beliefs, but without realising it (reminds me of, but not 'equivalent to...'). It would be interesting to discuss your position on divinity and your agnosticism. In fact, only recently I was debating people about their alleged agnosticism and what it really meant (I don't believe agnosticism is a position one can hold in relation to God's existence, but rather in relation to ability to know).
What I am tempted to assert is that much of the theistic debate is premature, because supporters of the argument for the existence of the divine have not properly defined what their "god" is, rendering as gibberish any argument as to that divinity's existence. This owes to the fact that most religious conviction in the world supposes an ineffable and inscrutable divine entity whose own nature is explicitly asserted to be beyond cosmic nature, thereby denying our potential ability to conceptualize the divinity within a logical framework, yet is simultaneously proclaimed to encompass specific qualities whose effects are knowable or at least believable, and therefore within the realm of logic specifically and reason generally. "God" manifests itself in the world, we are told, but we are not told what "god" is, and we are explicitly denied a mechanism to discern this divinity rationally. It is a very elaborate bare assertion, but no less fallacious for the supposed primacy of the subject matter.
Cosmic atheism--that is, the rejection of the supposed existence of that which is described by every divine premise, without regard to the specifics of any one such premise--is not convincingly untenable to me, presently, mostly due to lack of intense study on my part into the matter, but neither is there any such argument for cosmic atheism of which I am aware and which I find persuasive. At the end of the day, our knowledge of the universe is still limited, and the possibility of unknowables outside present human nature (if not necessarily future human nature, let alone cosmic nature) cannot be discounted. I am content, then, to proclaim agnosticism not as a matter of universal truth, but because I don't have the means at this time to make an argument in either direction which would persuade, of all people, me.
Further, as my thoughts and experiences have grown, I have come to the view that it probably doesn't matter. We are creatures of such capacity that, in our present nature, it may be impossible for us to distinguish between the actions of a truly divine entity and those of a merely highly advanced natural being, unless of course we beg the question by presuming that "GOD" would resolve the dilemma for us through divine power. We must be who we are, because we cannot be who we are not. If there is divinity among us, then, either we shall be made aware of it through inexplicable divine power, or we shall not be made aware of it at all--yet, either way, our existence will continue as natural beings in this natural world, unless or until such time as we are all magically spirited away through divine power into other circumstances, because that is our nature.
It is not so different to wonder whether there are castles outside the laws of physics. Perhaps it can be an interesting question, and perhaps if there are such constructs it would entail consequences for our castle design methods heretofore, but, really, it doesn't matter, because we have no access to the true answer. We could overwhelm our minds with an infinitude of such ponderables, all perfectly outside the realm of observation and reason. "God" is merely one instance of this class, and is only inflated above the rest by our instinctive characteristics. I, myself, have long since moved on to more interesting questions in philosophy. For me, the question of the existence of the divine is relevant only in the context of eradicating religious faith.
But yes, regardless of where my critical thinking takes me, that critical thinking most likely couldn't have arisen without you or this forum. That isn't to say nothing else influenced me, since when I left this forum I wasn't an atheist, but every descent has its beginning.
Thank you. That is what I would consider a high praise. I remember you once arguing that it is okay for a husband to hit his wife because he is required to be gentle about it, and is only allowed to do it after her independent streak cannot be quashed in other ways. You have come a long way. Welcome! One thing I can share with you now is that this world is so much more satisfying when you comprehend that it likely wasn't "created" by any intention at all, or, at the very least, can be explained and quantified naturally. This is one of the truths of the world which no believer seems to be able to comprehend...perhaps because it is the kind of realization that would instantly disabuse them of their faith.
