I have some questions for the posters here.

[Brian37]

I think most theists and those who misuse the word "agnostic" which was not a real word, but one Thomas Huxley horribly cobbled together to mean "split the baby". 

I think there is no inconsistency in saying "I am an atheist" and at the same time admitting one can be wrong. 

I'd say just on Occam's razor and law of probability, the necessity of a super cognition being a prime mover, or first cause is fleetingly unnecessary/superfluous. The idea that an all powerful super cognition is also an Orwellian idea. 

If one wants to claim God is a possible reality sure, they can claim that. But I look at that being a reality at the same odds of this.

There’s so much nonsense in that post, I hardly know where to begin. So I won’t try.

Boru

Nonsense when I was agreeing with you? Ok. Are you going to argue that Stephen Hawking was wrong in saying "A God is not required'?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

There’s so much nonsense in that post, I hardly know where to begin. So I won’t try.

Boru

Nonsense when I was agreeing with you? Ok.

No, nonsense about Huxley, the word ‘agnostic’, Orwell, and super cognition.

Boru

[Brian37]

Nonsense when I was agreeing with you? Ok.

No, nonsense about Huxley, the word ‘agnostic’, Orwell, and super cognition.

Boru

Huxley invented a word that did not exist in ancient Greece. 

He cobbled the prefix "a" with "gnostic" or "gnosis" suffix. That combo never existed in the original Greek language.

"a" meant "without" "gnosis" means knowledge. But "without knowledge" does not denote what someone is "without knowledge of".

So if we are to use Huxley's word properly, it can only be a qualifier word that can be used between "agnostic theist" or "agnostic atheist".

An a outright theist would be a Christian, or Muslim who claims to know that their god is absolutely real. An "agnostic theist" would be one who leans to a God being real, but admits they don't know for sure. Conversely, an outright atheist claims their is no God. Whereas an "agnostic atheist" leans to no God/gods existing but isn't sure. 

Huxley fucked up by trying to make "I don't know" a stand alone word, when in reality if we insist on using that word, it is only pragmatic in being a qualifying word.

And what is wrong with rightfully stating that the omi concept of a God is Orwellian. It knows everything, it sees everything, even when you shit and pee and have sex. I'd call such a claim Orwellian.

"Super cognition" is my term for "God", a mythological superman.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

No, nonsense about Huxley, the word ‘agnostic’, Orwell, and super cognition.

Boru

Huxley invented a word that did not exist in ancient Greece. 

He cobbled the prefix "a" with "gnostic" or "gnosis" suffix. That combo never existed in the original Greek language.

"a" meant "without" "gnosis" means knowledge. But "without knowledge" does not denote what someone is "without knowledge of".

So if we are to use Huxley's word properly, it can only be a qualifier word that can be used between "agnostic theist" or "agnostic atheist".

An a outright theist would be a Christian, or Muslim who claims to know that their god is absolutely real. An "agnostic theist" would be one who leans to a God being real, but admits they don't know for sure. Conversely, an outright atheist claims their is no God. Whereas an "agnostic atheist" leans to no God/gods existing but isn't sure. 

Huxley fucked up by trying to make "I don't know" a stand alone word, when in reality if we insist on using that word, it is only pragmatic in being a qualifying word.

And what is wrong with rightfully stating that the omi concept of a God is Orwellian. It knows everything, it sees everything, even when you shit and pee and have sex. I'd call such a claim Orwellian.

"Super cognition" is my term for "God", a mythological superman.

I didn't really need the lecture on the etymology of 'agnostic'. Here's what Huxley said about it:

'Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe. Consequently, agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology. On the whole, the "bosh" of heterodoxy is more offensive to me than that of orthodoxy, because heterodoxy professes to be guided by reason and science, and orthodoxy does not.' He clearly did not intend it to apply ONLY to religious belief.

And so what if it wasn't an ancient Greek word? It's a perfectly acceptable word, both grammatically and in meaning. People coin words all the time.

You moved the goalposts again. Earlier, you didn't say the concept of an omni God is Orwellian. You said super cognition is Orwellian. It isn't. Nor is it a requirement for a prime mover to be super cognitive, or for a super cognate to be a prime mover.

Boru

[Frank Apisa]

The real question for me would be, why would a God be a requirement at all? 

I do assert Occam's razor, in that it is far more infinitely likely that humans make god/s up as a reflection of their own desires. 

It is absolutely true that humans can't know the future. But at the same time, we can discard bad claims. 

I am a flat out atheist as far as past and current claims of God/gods/deities made so far. I am an agnostic atheist "technically" as far as the future, but even then, I find it highly unlikely that there will be a super cognition found as an answer. Even then, the idea seems superfluous.

RESPONSE:  

Wow, this is great. I posted the thread and went to the store to buy tonight’s fixing for dinner…and already several responses.
I appreciate them.
Brian 37: You really did not answer any of my questions. Let me ask again:
Do you assert that no gods exist?
If yes, do you assert that you KNOW no gods exist?
Do you assert it is impossible for gods to exist?

---

I assert that no gods exist.

I know, in the sense that I am certain, that no gods exist (I may be wrong, but I’m not uncertain).

I do not assert that it is impossible for gods to exist.

Ta for asking.

Boru

Boru: You assert that no gods exist…and that you KNOW that none exist…but that you are not asserting that it is impossible for gods to exist.
 
I question that you actually KNOW that no gods exist, but I would love for you to tell me more about how you KNOW. It sounds to me that you “know” the way some theist explain how they “know” their god exists. Can you flesh you “know” out a bit?

---

gods exist. In the land of fairy tales and daydreams.

No one…you sound as though you are saying that no gods exist, but you did not explicitly say so. Any chance you want to expand on your comments?

---

Is there anyone here who asserts, “No gods exist?”
Yes, me.

Is there anyone here who asserts that he/she KNOWS that no gods exist?
Yes, me.

Is there anyone here who asserts that it is impossible for gods to exist?
Yes, me.

Foxaire:  Thanks. You answered directly. You assert no gods exist, you assert you KNOW none exist; and you assert it is impossible for gods to exist.
 
Why do you assert those things?

---

I don't think "gods in general" is well enough defined to say much about.  Your definition is just one of many.

Angrboda…I agree with you. Many definitions of “god” exist. But I narrowed it down to a specific. Would you be willing to deal with my questions using that particular specific?

---

I've not been provided with concrete evidence for a god. Until that day, no god(s).

I'm convinced that my dogs consider me a god. I get concrete evidence for that daily.

Brewer, I have cat who considers itself to be a god. I am happy your dog considers you to be a god. But, if you could (would) I’d appreciate you dealing with my questions apart from that.

[brewer]

I've not been provided with concrete evidence for a god. Until that day, no god(s).

I'm convinced that my dogs consider me a god. I get concrete evidence for that daily.

Brewer, I have cat who considers itself to be a god. I am happy your dog considers you to be a god. But, if you could (would) I’d appreciate you dealing with my questions apart from that.

I did, maybe you need to read again, no concrete evidence = no god.

And do us all a favor, change your font size.

[Angrboda]

I don't think "gods in general" is well enough defined to say much about.  Your definition is just one of many.

Angrboda…I agree with you. Many definitions of “god” exist. But I narrowed it down to a specific. Would you be willing to deal with my questions using that particular specific?

No. Your definition includes things that are not gods and appears to be just your idiosyncratic attempt to gerrymander the issue. Why would I waste my time?

[arewethereyet]

I just love people who ask a question and then tell you they don't like your answer.

[Frank Apisa]

Brewer, I have cat who considers itself to be a god. I am happy your dog considers you to be a god. But, if you could (would) I’d appreciate you dealing with my questions apart from that.

I did, maybe you need to read again, no concrete evidence = no god.

And do us all a favor, change your font size.

Not sure how the font size happened, but it must have been because I wrote it in Word and cut & paste it here. Sorry it upset you.

I do not have to read your post again. You did not answer any of my questions.

Do you assert there are no gods...or are you asserting you have seen no evidence of any gods.

Those are two different things.

---

I just love people who ask a question and then tell you they don't like your answer.

What does that have to do with me? I loved every answer I got. I have not told anyone that I do not like their answer...but I have asked for some explanations of the answers that seem to need explanation.

[purplepurpose]

"I don't know" is a voice of reason. I enjoy more passionate statements here like "F God" or "Believe Bible. Judgment day will come and you will beg for mercy, but it will be too late!".

I believe there is a god and it's not a coincidence, that people go as far as debate for the right, just to die and don't face God. Such a pleasant character, this God is.