Atheist or Agnostic?

[downbeatplumb]

I am wide open to your proof.

Please open another thread and lay it out. If it is convincing, I will be compelled to accept it.

So, yes, I'd be a (speculative) agnostic and (practical) atheist regarding all other types of gods; I don't know anything about them, nor do I care. My (mostly Catholic) God suffices for me.

[/quote]

I would be very surprised it is anything beyond an argument from ignorance.

[robvalue]

While we're waiting for this proof, let me turn the argument around. This is a challenge to any theist.

Can you provide conditions which would lead you to not conclude that there is a god? It can be anything such as what the universe would be like, what events might happen, and so on. In other words, do you have any sort of failure criteria?

[comet]

It is not about that "fence" it is about being honest.  agnostics know what they don't know.     Carl, Neil, Einstein, Witten.  When you can listen to these people and understand everything they say.  Everything.  Then you know enough to be what you are.   Otherwise, use the words "In my opinion ...". 

[One Above All]

It is not about that "fence" it is about being honest.

Never met an intellectually honest self-proclaimed "agnostic" in my life.

agnostics know what they don't know.

Which, if we're talking about actual agnostics, is everything. In fact, if we're talking about actual agnostics, they don't even know what they don't know. They don't know anything. That's what an agnostic is. It's not a middleground between atheism and theism because the position of "agnostic" (no knowledge) is reserved for those with total amnesia or those who otherwise have no memories whatsoever.

Carl, Neil, Einstein, Witten.

Argument from authority. Garbage.

When you can listen to these people and understand everything they say.

Well, I only recognize three names, and I've never heard two of their voices, so...

Then you know enough to be what you are.

So we can only be what we are by listening to people from these past two centuries? How did the world exist before then?

[comet]

It is not about that "fence" it is about being honest.

Never met an intellectually honest self-proclaimed "agnostic" in my life.

agnostics know what they don't know.

Which, if we're talking about actual agnostics, is everything. In fact, if we're talking about actual agnostics, they don't even know what they don't know. They don't know anything. That's what an agnostic is. It's not a middleground between atheism and theism because the position of "agnostic" (no knowledge) is reserved for those with total amnesia or those who otherwise have no memories whatsoever.

Carl, Neil, Einstein, Witten.

Argument from authority. Garbage.

When you can listen to these people and understand everything they say.

Well, I only recognize three names, and I've never heard two of their voices, so...

Then you know enough to be what you are.

So we can only be what we are by listening to people from these past two centuries? How did the world exist before then?

don't do word games.  

Only the facts as best we can.
  
you are correct in everything you said.  So it gets back to honesty and facts.  Honesty in our stances and honesty in how much we know.  Then we can address a particular claim(s) 

[One Above All]

don't do word games.

No word games. "Agnostic" means "without knowledge". Even if it only meant "without knowledge of the existence of deities", it's still not an answer to the question. The question, as it turns out, is "Do you believe in one or more deities?", and so the only answers are "Yes" (theism) or "No" (atheism). "I don't know if deities exist" says nothing about what you do or do not believe.

Only the facts as best we can.

The facts are spelled out above.

So it gets back to honesty and facts. Honesty in our stances and honesty in how much we know.

My stance is gnostic atheism, and for a very simple reason: the term "god" is loosely defined at best. One person's god is another person's toilet paper (possibly literally for some). I thought about the characteristics a being could have that would make me bow down and worship it. The universe, as it exists, is not compatible with those characteristics, so I can say for certain that there are no gods. Moreover, I can say that there never have been nor will there ever be gods.

Then we can address a particular claim(s)

It would help if you didn't spit out one-sentence responses with double (sometimes triple or quadruple) spacing.

[comet]

don't do word games.

No word games. "Agnostic" means "without knowledge". Even if it only meant "without knowledge of the existence of deities", it's still not an answer to the question. The question, as it turns out, is "Do you believe in one or more deities?", and so the only answers are "Yes" (theism) or "No" (atheism). "I don't know if deities exist" says nothing about what you do or do not believe.

Only the facts as best we can.

The facts are spelled out above.

So it gets back to honesty and facts. Honesty in our stances and honesty in how much we know.

My stance is gnostic atheism, and for a very simple reason: the term "god" is loosely defined at best. One person's god is another person's toilet paper (possibly literally for some). I thought about the characteristics a being could have that would make me bow down and worship it. The universe, as it exists, is not compatible with those characteristics, so I can say for certain that there are no gods. Moreover, I can say that there never have been nor will there ever be gods.

Then we can address a particular claim(s)

It would help if you didn't spit out one-sentence responses with double (sometimes triple or quadruple) spacing.

I don't do "grammar proves my point" so that can be flushed with your toilet paper.

Militant is an emotional connection to anti religion and you reject what you reject because you rejected it.  I get that part too.  I agree with that part and your first post.

"Gnostic" That is a false claim. 

I agree again with you. if there is a god you do not have to worship it.  That's a personal religious stance anyway and god wouldn't care if you did or didn't if he existed.  It would only care that you be you. "if" that is.   

Other than you being in the know I agree with you.  But who is in the know anyway.  

[One Above All]

I don't do "grammar proves my point" so that can be flushed with your toilet paper.

I don't do strawmen, so up yours. I said it would help; not that it would be the defining factor. Readability is important if you're communicating through the use of a written medium. Otherwise we might as well "r1t3 lyk d15" and fuck everyone who doesn't understand it.

Militant is an emotional connection to anti religion and you reject what you reject because you rejected it. I get that part too. I agree with that part and your first post.

So you're saying you've not reading my posts, seeing as how I've not written the word "militant" in any of them (it's not a word I use often; I'm willing to bet it's in no more than 50 posts I've ever made on any website ever). Gotcha.

"Gnostic" That is a false claim.

Yours is, I agree. Mine is not, however.

Other than you being in the know I agree with you. But who is in the know anyway.

Gnostic atheists are "in the know". Agnostic atheists are not. It's right there in the description.

[Cyberman]

I agree again with you. if there is a god you do not have to worship it.  That's a personal religious stance anyway and god wouldn't care if you did or didn't if he existed.  It would only care that you be you. "if" that is.

Then it would be a useless god.

[comet]

I don't do "grammar proves my point" so that can be flushed with your toilet paper.

I don't do strawmen, so up yours. I said it would help; not that it would be the defining factor. Readability is important if you're communicating through the use of a written medium. Otherwise we might as well "r1t3 lyk d15" and fuck everyone who doesn't understand it.

Militant is an emotional connection to anti religion and you reject what you reject because you rejected it. I get that part too. I agree with that part and your first post.

So you're saying you've not reading my posts, seeing as how I've not written the word "militant" in any of them (it's not a word I use often; I'm willing to bet it's in no more than 50 posts I've ever made on any website ever). Gotcha.

"Gnostic" That is a false claim.

Yours is, I agree. Mine is not, however.

Other than you being in the know I agree with you. But who is in the know anyway.

Gnostic atheists are "in the know". Agnostic atheists are not. It's right there in the description.

It all starts with honesty.  That is my main point.  you are what you think you are.  "Gnostic atheist" is a bullsit term.   I don't do beliefs based on emotional connections.  I certainly don't mess around with skewed world views.  You will not change.  end of story.

 
If'en ya fact fight, I am in.  If-en ya wanna keep on self justifying a personal opinion as more than a personal opinion, I am out.  Buh bye.

---

I agree again with you. if there is a god you do not have to worship it.  That's a personal religious stance anyway and god wouldn't care if you did or didn't if he existed.  It would only care that you be you. "if" that is.

Then it would be a useless god.

This is a personal opinion.  
Besides, there isn't one.