I was born into a very conservative, Calvinist Afrikaans family.
I also was a very conservative, God fearing person till the age of about 22, when I started questioning my faith after a talk by a creationist. He lied and kept on lying about very easily verifiable facts.
After that I took a course at University in Biblical studies. One of the Afrikaans Protestant versions of the Bible. Calvinistic. Three years.
It was then than I realized that the point of view of Christianity was unevidenced and in direct conflict with what we were learning in school - science, geology, etc...
So, after a long struggle, by around 35 years old, I considered myself agnostic and stayed that way for a few years, until where I just decided to call myself an atheist because I was tired of having to explain my agnoticism.
Through much debating and discussions I now consider the question of "Is there a God" to be as vague as the many descriptions of God that one can come up with.
After that, dealing with creationists, who always tell untruths on the internet, I became a radical atheist.
However, after being introduced to the term Ignosticism, which I’ve never heard of before, I now tend to also classify myself as a radical Ignosticist.
To quote from Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism
Ignosticism or igtheism is the theological position that every other theological position (including agnosticism and atheism) assumes too much about the concept of God and many other theological concepts.
It can be defined as encompassing two related views about the existence of God:
1. The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term "God" is considered meaningless.
2. The second view is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking "What is meant by 'God'?" before proclaiming the original question "Does God exist?" as meaningless.
So, it basically means that anyone who claims a God should provide a meaningful definition of what they mean by the word God or Gods, before we can even start to have a meaningful discussion on the existence or non-existence of a God or Gods. For example, people claiming that God is everything, should also explain that why he or she thinks that God is the waste material excreted by your body cells into your guts through your circulation system. To say that ‘God is everything’ therefore is a meaningless concept. Define God before you can have an opinion of what God actually is.
I’d like to hear your thoughts.