Agnostic: a pointless term?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Still falls upon them to prove that god's existence.

If someone says the universe is god, fine, I can dig it. But given that the definition of a god has always been an intelligent entity of supernatural power and otherworldly presence, then such is what I shall always view it as. If someone calls a tree a god, it's still a tree to me, and a tree to the definition of the word. Someone wants to make subjective definitions on their own, fine, but it doesn't mean I have any intention of entertaining every last individual's fickle whims. Such a stance is likely to be viewed as me being an asshole. If so... Oh well.

I wouldn't disagree.

There was a girl who joined AF.com a few years back who defined her god as the rain. I couldn't deny that 'rain exists', however there was no reason to believe that it was either sentient or indeed a 'god', even taking the ill-defined normative imagination of one as a given.

As a side, I also dislike the use of the word 'deny'. It insinuates that the god (however defined) is given but is rejected for a given reason. No god's have ever been demonstrated, so saying one 'denies' them is absurd. Much better to say one denies the claim being made by the claimant.

[Creed of Heresy]

I'm a bit inebriated now so the finer points of denial elude me, I'm afraid, but that said, I agree all the same, at least to what I understand. Still, I outright state that there is no god. No god, no gods, nothing.

When told to provide proof that no god exists, I simply state "show me evidence of your god(s) and their godliness." When, as they always do, they fail to provide any, I tell them that that is my proof. And when they say that it's up to me to prove my own claim, I simply state that my claim is based on their own. If they can prove their own god's existence, then my argument has failed. My argument is easy to take apart and prove wrong; just demonstrate tangible evidence of their gods' existence.

If they fail, then I have my proof. If they succeed, then I must concede defeat.

You can probably guess how many times the latter has happened...

Long story short; if you claim to be an agnostic, just grow some fucking balls and admit you know damn well there are no such things as gods. Dithering about with the shit about how you "cannot know" is just a fucking tedious waste of time. You know damn well the truth of the matter. Watching an agnostic try to go on about their hesitations or the "unknown" or what-the-fuck-ever-else they use as their reason for half-assing their belief/non-belief is like watching a gay republican trying to talk about the important of heterosexual Christian family values; it's fucking obnoxious and I already know the truth of the fucking matter. Quit dicking around and just join the rest of us in stating what you already know, dammit.

[bennyboy]

Long story short; if you claim to be an agnostic, just grow some fucking balls and admit you know damn well there are no such things as gods. Dithering about with the shit about how you "cannot know" is just a fucking tedious waste of time.

I'm agnostic because I don't know if there's a God, but I find the idea that something like God exists plausible enough to merit consideration.

Also, go fuck yourself. People are perfectly capable of choosing a word that represents their feelings or ideas about things, without you telling them what they mean.

[Creed of Heresy]

Plausible? You seriously entertain the notion of a god?

Based. On. WHAT.

Tell me to fuck myself all you want, but if you're gonna entertain the notion of some make-believe figure of myth, at least have the balls to show me how you justify it.

Otherwise, just admit you're an indecisive pussy.

---

[Disclaimer: I don't think you're an indecisive pussy, but it makes it sound like my argument is more vehement if I say that]

[Whateverist]

Two people have lots to say about gawd only knows what. Neither has any evidence and neither has defined what it is they find plausible or impossible. Whose position is more ludicrous?

---

Doesn't matter. It is makes for good drama regardless.

But at least the one pushing agnosticism has only said it seems plausible to him. The inebriated atheist is making the more strident claim.

---

[Creed of Heresy]

Hey, you've been paying attention.

Still. My claim is that god does not exist. My claim of what defines a god is based on what millenia upon millenia of religions say the definition of god is.

If that is "strident," well, it's nice to know that not entertaining half-assed opinions means I'm mean and a jerk. *rolls eyes*

[YGninja]

So you're never going to respond to these major points? I guess we are done, i accept your forfeiture.

---

I am a hard-line atheist. 7 on the Dawkins scale, I outright know for a fucking fact no gods exist.

Wanna know how I know? Because after 10,000+ attempts at the God Hypothesis being disproven, you have to eventually come to realize that the hypothesis is fundamentally wrong.

I know there are no gods like I know there are no unicorns. You can dance around and get into the semantics of "BUT YOU DON'T KNOW ABSOLUTELY!"

Yes. Yes I fucking do. My mind is completely concluded. I know for a damn fact no evidence for a god will ever come about, because over the course of humanity's existence, gods have been nothing more than the subject of imaginary stories used by those who had no other qualities that made them worthy of leadership other than the ability to lie to the illiterate to be rulers over the masses.

You can be agnostic if you want. But to me, an agnostic is simply an atheist who still entertains the possibility of something that never had any possibility to begin with. An agnostic is an atheist who is still dithering hesitantly.

All the proof you should need is the absolute total and utter lack of proof. The burden of proof is on the claimant. They have none. Ergo, there is no god, there are no gods, there never have been any gods, and there never will be any gods.

Lol, the irony is killing me. A picture in place of a rebuttal, the picture telling me that i am the illogical one refusing to play by the rules. Do you ever stand back and take a look at yourself?

[Pizza]

Do you have to derail this thread and make it about you?

[bennyboy]

Plausible? You seriously entertain the notion of a god?

Based. On. WHAT.

Tell me to fuck myself all you want, but if you're gonna entertain the notion of some make-believe figure of myth, at least have the balls to show me how you justify it.

Otherwise, just admit you're an indecisive pussy.

---

[Disclaimer: I don't think you're an indecisive pussy, but it makes it sound like my argument is more vehement if I say that]

In this thread, I've explained in detail why I choose to identify as an agnostic, and not as an agnostic atheist. The word has meaning-- it distinguishes my position from the positions of other people.

And what's this shit about supporting make-believe figures? If I supported those ideas, I would say so.

[Whateverist]

In this thread, I've explained in detail why I choose to identify as an agnostic, and not as an agnostic atheist. The word has meaning-- it distinguishes my position from the positions of other people.

And what's this shit about supporting make-believe figures? If I supported those ideas, I would say so.

You make that sound pretty special. Do you believe it is impossible for anyone to have knowledge about gods/God? Or is your agnosticism personal, more a matter of fitting your dispositions? I only ask to find out if you think every right thinking person should share your position.

Have you said if you identify as an agnostic theist? Those are fun. Maybe you avoid the question of god belief altogether? I admit I have only the fuzziest of notions regarding what a god may be. So I can get behind boycotting the question pending an adequate definition. I think I may be, like, a 1/16th ignostic. But I obviously don't really mind discussing it or I wouldn't be here.

Regardless I'm willing to stack my atheistic agnosticism up against your purist agnosticism any day of the week .. and most definitely twice on Sunday.