What is an individual's personal philosophy?
An individual's personal philosophy is his set/system/collection of concepts/principles/techniques for analyzing/evaluating/judging the causality [causal relationships/cause-and-effect relationships between/among people/things/events] of the people/things/events of reality, who/which are the natural phenomena of reality; an individual creates a personal philosophy from his experiences in determining which people/things/events in reality and which concepts/principles/techniques [ideas/thoughts/thinking] in his mind realize/achieve positively/negatively his desires/fears/priorities.
Definitions of theist, atheist, and agnostic used by nonscholars perhaps should be used instead of definitions of those terms used by scholars.
Existence is to be contrasted with the content of an idea which, as the content of an idea, may or may not be true. Existence is truth. That which exists is true in the sense of truly having existence, truly being real, truly being actual. That which is the content of an idea may or may not be true or have existence. Thus, it is reasonable to define existence by contrast of that which has existence, is real, is actual, and therefore is true with that which is the content of an idea and which may or may not be true.
Thus, to believe must include the ideas that proposition p is true and that person/thing p exists.
To have a belief in gods is to believe gods exist, that the statement gods exist is a true statement; to have no belief in gods is to believe that gods do not exist, that the statement gods exist is a false statement.
1. Physical Evidence: People/things/events who/which can be seen/heard/touched/smelled/tasted and thus observed and measured directly or indirectly through the use of machines such as telescopes/microscopes/audio amplifiers/etc., or who/which can be inferred by their effects upon natural/physical phenomena (people/things/events comprised of matter/energy and therefore exist in contrast to being the subject matter/content of ideas/dreams/fantasies/etc.)
2. Eyewitness Reports: Testimonies by credible individuals corroborated by corroborating reports by credible corroborators.
3. Logical Arguments: Arguments in which premises which are verifiable/falsifiable/verified lead logically to conclusions which are true if the premises are true; wherein the premises must answer the begged question: Is this premise true?; wherein verification of the premises must by based upon physical evidence and/or eyewitness reports.
Theist = Person who believes in the existence of gods and who asserts that he has proof gods exist.
Theism = The philosophy which includes a belief in the existence of gods and in the existence of proof of the existence of gods.
Atheist = A person who believes in the nonexistence of gods and who asserts that he has proof that gods do not exist.
Atheism = The philosophy which includes a belief in the nonexistence of gods and in the existence of proof of the nonexistence of gods.
Agnostic = A person who believes in neither the existence nor the nonexistence of gods and who asserts that both the theists' proof of the existence of gods and the atheists' proof of the nonexistence of gods are inconclusive.
Agnosticism = The philosophy which precludes belief in the existence or nonexistence of gods but which includes a belief in the nonexistence of conclusive proof of the existence or nonexistence of gods.
What we have are beliefs built upon proof of some kind. The theist has the belief that he has proof of the existence of gods while the atheist has the belief that he has proof of the nonexistence of gods while the agnostic has the belief that neither the theist nor the atheist have proof supporting their assertions.
Note that eyewitness reports/corroborating reports must be of physical evidence--seeing/hearing/touching/smelling/tasting people/things/events who/which are comprised of matter/energy; and note that the premises of logical arguments must be of physical evidence consisting of verifiable/falsifiable/verified observations/measurements of people/things/events.
We thus must, at some point in religious discussion, require physical proof. No gods, no proof. No proof, no gods.
If theists cannot prove their assertions that gods exist, and if atheists cannot prove their assertions that gods do not exist, then the only rational philosophical position to hold is that of agnosticism in the sense of recognizing the lack of proof of either theism or atheism.
Agnosticism thus does not mean that no proof is possible of a proposition/assertion/claim--how could anyone prove THAT?!?!?!; but, instead, agnosticism means recognizing that proof is necessary for accepting as true a proposition/assertion/claim and, no conclusive proof appearing supporting either theism or atheism, then the question must remain unanswered until additional proof is discovered.
Agnosticism thus recognizes that not all questions require answers. For example, the question Do gods exist? does not require an answer; people can live good and worthwhile lives despite not having a conclusive answer to the question Do gods exist?
The essence of agnosticism is thus: He who asserts must prove!
And, concerning religion, and the assertions/propositions/claims of theists, the agnostic slogan could very well be thus: Show us the gods!