you misunderstand. this is nothing so dogmatic as that.
"I'm sure we can think of any other reasons a child in duress may experience hallucinations"
but when those hallucinations take the form of an unknown figure who only AFTERWARDS is discovered to be known as a protector of children... I think anything can make sense if you look at it through the right filters but in order to make your conclusions, you only have to pay attention to the parts of the story that make sense to you.
The child had no knowledge of Bastet before the encounter, on top of no knowledge that they are traditionally a protector of children, yet she appeared very accurately to them. if one has a truly "open" mind they would accept that some things are beyond current explanation. if not, they are ignoring the bits of history and human experience that do not fit in with their worldview.
Hypothetically, if Eris visited you and were a real being and not a "supernatural" entity, it would not change anything about her other than the filter you see her through. Capital T truth is unchanging, but our lower t truth is our own personal truths and changed depending on our perspectives and applied reasoning.
"you only have to pay attention to the parts of the story that make sense to you"
This is what ALL theists do - up to and including those defending Genesis as absolute truth. They simply ignore any information that happens to contradict their established beliefs.
"Agnostic Theist" - is that someone who has no knowledge of a god in whom they believe? Or are you absolutely positive that there might be a god? (Sorry. Just trying to ad a modicum of confusion to this futile attempt to define terms.)
They are theist as they have a belief in god and are also agnostic as they don't claim to know for a fact that god exists.
I'd say there is some knowledge there, just not absolute or unchanging knowledge. The belief is there, though as I said earlier, my beliefs are not as concrete as most theists.
"Religion is about the existence and causal powers of non observable entities and agencies." - P.Boyer
Cultures have attached a myriad number of labels to these "entities and agencies", one being god. In your particular case since you have not ruled out the possibility of the existence of a non observable being I believe you're more inclined to be labeled agnostic than atheist. We all love labels, right?
It depends who you ask. We can play semantics and throw out definitions until the cows come home but God, as mostly defined, is the creator of the universe who pulls the strings on Earth and beyond. To a believer, he's the old guy in the clouds with a grey beard and dress. I think that's what most Christians imagine when they ask him for favours, it's at least what I saw in my head when I was a believer. An atheist is one without belief in god/gods. It really is that simple.
God, to a believer, is a real father figure with all the emotions attached. I believe this is why it feels so real to them. It feels like a real relationship.
God, to an atheist, is an imaginary construct from thousands of years ago.
The judeo-christian notion of God as a father figure is but one interpretation of "the divine"
The Aborigine mysticism and concept of "Great Oneness" was the first interpretation of it that made sense to me after I rejected Catholicism and started calling myself agnostic.
I'm so confused... LOL
I can't wrap my noodle around the image of an alien technologically advanced enough to create a world. Maybe too much of "The Wrath of Kahn" and "The Search for Spock" and the "Genesis Effect" (Why call it that Gene?).
Suffice it to say I don't believe in the supernatural and any thoughts about superior technologically advanced beings, that can create whole Stars and Solar systems, is in the realm of science fiction. Unless one pops up, creates a solar system within a galaxy, and proves me wrong...
yup, alien creation isn't one I'd buy into, though it is a fun thought and is many times more likely than some beliefs held by many today.
could our perceivable universe be at the edge of a petri dish in a giant lab? ok, i haven't seen any evidence at all, but hard to dis prove and makes more sense than Scientology
The best definition I know of god(s) ... are those who consciously create (and possibly maintain and or modify) objects and environments on a cosmic scale.
And that might be the case for our universe. But it's a waste of time to debate if this is true or not. A total waste of time.