Agnostic: a pointless term?

[YGninja]

No, you could say "i don't know if x exists, therefore i do not actively believe it does", which is an extraneous statement but atleast coherent.

When you say you "don't believe", what you are actually saying is you believe it doesn't (exist). Like if someone says they "don't believe" you are telling the truth what they are actually saying is that they believe you are lying. This is just mis-use of a colloquialism. You are also missing the meaning of the word agnosticism, which is a lack of knowledge precluding the ability to form an opinion. Agnosticism has never pertaining to knowing with certainty, this is why i warded you off defining by etymology. No-one can ever really say they *know* anything, which is why such a definition of agnosticism would be meaningless. Everyone would be agnostic about everything.

YGninja, the first time you posted about this, you really pissed me off and I insulted you. Sorry about that but it strikes me as incredibly arrogant and disrespectful when you have the temerity to tell someone else what they are thinking. Ridiculous, too. Do you honestly believe you know a person's thoughts better than they do?

Let me try again to address this.

As I said up-thread, I couldn't care less what label you are anyone else uses to call me. But, don't even think of trying to tell me what I believe. I'll spell it out for you.

1. I don't deny the possibility of the existence of something we might call
God. This would be some super being we know nothing of - not one of the countless, ludicrous, fantasy gods of the hundreds or thousands of human religions. But just just like the hypothetical teapot orbiting Jupiter, I do not believe it exists simply because there is no compelling reason to think it exists. The same with any number of theoretical possible things from invisible aliens among us to an alternate universe where the Chicago Cubs are the most successful baseball team in history. They MIGHT exist but there is no good reason to suppose they do. Not having belief in them is the default position. Otherwise, one would believe in everything. There is not only a teapot orbiting Jupiter but an entire dinner set and all the pieces are autographed by Queen Victoria. Madness.

2. I feel perfectly comfortable taking the positive position that the God described in the Bible does not exist. I am confident of that position because for starters, some of the things claimed about this God are logically impossible. Others are so ridiculous upon examination that the claim can be dismissed.

3. I have not closely examined the claims made by non-Abrahamic religions but in the absence of solid claims by the adherents of those religions, I dismiss those as well.

4. I am a rational being so of course I will change my position if at anytime the evidence and/or facts warrant it.

Now, I've spelt out what I do and don't believe and you may feel free to assign me a label based on that. I really don't care. But if you have the arrogance to try and tell me what is in my own head, I'm going to tell you to go fuck yourself.

So do you have no belief in a hypothetical teapot orbiting Jupiter, or do you assume a belief, to any degree of certainty, that there isn't a teapot orbiting Jupiter because of evidence, namely, the idea is completely arbitrary and ad-hoc in nature?
Do you have no opinion of invisible aliens walking amongst us, or do you assume the belief, to any degree of certainty, that there aren't, because again the idea seems completely arbitrary and ad hoc?

See, the arbitrary nature of any postulate is evidence against its existence, or atleast taken to be, as evidence, contrary to what most atheists think, is only that which can be used to support an argument.

Not having belief in something merely because you don't feel compelled by the claim, cannot make you an atheist. It makes you an agnostic. If you are not convinced by 1, your position is not -1, but 0.

So what are you? An agnostic or an atheist? You cannot be both, its incoherent. You cannot simultaneously assume any belief while denying there is enough evidence to form an opinion.

If someone tells me there is an invisible flying spaghetti monster flying around my head, i am not afraid to say i believe they are wrong. Because:
1: I don't have to prove my beliefs correct, i only need to show how they're reasonable.
2: The idea seems arbitrary and ad hoc, a product of imagination and nothing more. Whats more, an invisible flying spaghetti monster would not be an explicator for any phenomena i experience. Therefor there is no reason to even infer its existence.
3: Humans can imagine an infinite amount of things, but reality can only support a finite number of things, hence if the only evidence for something is human imagination, the chances are strongly against its actual existence.
4: The chances are in my favour that there is not an invisible flying spaghetti monster flying around, hence i am not afraid to assume a belief to that effect.