Agnostic: a pointless term?

[FreeTony]

I don't think you are being irrational and/or arrogant in claiming that you definitely know a God doesn't exist. I think you are being irrational and/or arrogant in your childlike definition of the linguistic problem involved, and the actual reasons people prefer to be called agnostic and not atheistic.

My own choice of the agnostic position involves a consideration of many things: the limitations of language, the choice of who gets to define what words mean, the way human beings collect information (and what information they probably can't collect), the actual human experiences that might have been thought of as spiritual in the past, etc. It also includes the context for the question-- who's asking it, and why's it being asked? What information about me is the question actually meant to reveal?

The simplest context is just refusing to answer an ill-defined question:
You: Do you believe in God?
Me: What do you mean?
You: Whatever you want it to mean. . . ya know-- God.
Me: Then I don't know. I'm not in the mood to invent your strawman for you.

As far as I'm aware you have two choices, you are either a Theist, or you are not a Theist.

Coming from a scientific background, the default position is disbelief, and then when you have enough evidence to convince you, you start believing. Just because a hypothesis is illl defined or completely untestable, doesn't mean I should change my disbelief stance. This is what I understand as Atheism.

I think in reality most self described Atheists and Agnostics have fairly similar beliefs, whereas some Theists may think that Agnostics "half believe" in a God, or at least entertain it as a plausible idea, when in reality this perhaps isn't the case.

---

David Mitchell! I'm still angry with you. I've watched all the peep shows, and this is my thanks?

He did marry a Christian, so perhaps it's best to be an Agnostic to maintain marital bliss!