Hi, an agnostic here ... just agnostic.

[brewer]

OP, Welcome. Thanks for making an intro thread. If the debate becomes heated you might want to start a new thread. We limit "introduction" threads to, well for lack of a better word, niceties. 

It seems that you enjoy defining beliefs, non beliefs, people, things,  .................. 

If you enjoy that it's OK, just don't try to define me. I doubt that you could.

Arf, arf, bark, wooooooof, grr, ruff, bark.

Define yourself how you want. I defined myself how I wanted. Defined the terms how I use them. Then, someone told me "Agnosticism relates to knowledge; not beliefs", someone told me "In my opinion, "elephant" means "carrot"", implying I'm using words wrong, and someone took issue with me not being a fan of their definition. 

So this whole "define" thing is because someone told you that you are something that you're not, you got offended, and are now on a crusade?

For me, you are on the razors edge of boring. There are better thing to think about and discuss.

[TheHuxleyAgnostic]

Define yourself how you want. I defined myself how I wanted. Defined the terms how I use them. Then, someone told me "Agnosticism relates to knowledge; not beliefs", someone told me "In my opinion, "elephant" means "carrot"", implying I'm using words wrong, and someone took issue with me not being a fan of their definition. 

So this whole "define" thing is because someone told you that you are something that you're not, you got offended, and are now on a crusade?

For me, you are on the razors edge of boring. There are better thing to think about and discuss.

Or, they didn't like me saying "I'm not a fan", got offended, and went on a crusade to tell me how I'm wrong. Perspective matters, I guess. 

"But, whatever you like. I just made my own personal comment. Not a fan of a-theist. That's why I don't use it." ~ Me

"Fine, fine. I will break the words down for you. We'll go legitimately original here." ~ Jesster

---

If you try to shove people into your own semantic boxes, you're gonna have a bad time.

"Sure. Not a fan of that usage, myself." 
"But, whatever you like. I just made my own personal comment. Not a fan of a-theist. That's why I don't use it."

Who's trying to shove who into their own semantic box? 

[Whateverist]

I think I welcomed you already in one of the old agnosticism threads you necro'd last night. But you're still welcome.

English doesn't seem the right language for you. With French you could appeal to the academy to decide the matter. English is a mongrel language in which the meaning and use of words drift endlessly.

But I wonder which argument you are most keen to make? That atheos and theos have the same primacy, each evolving in its own right? Funny to imagine a use for "atheos" = not of the gods without a pre-existing "theos" = of the gods.

Earlier you said “I haven't created a false dichotomy. I presented 3 possible options, when there are 3 possible options. Presenting only 2 options, when there are actually 3 options, is a false dichotomy.“ So you've created, as many have already pointed out, a non-necessary trichotomy. Not believing that gods exist is not the same thing as believing they are non-existent. I don't know whether aliens exist but it certainly is not true that I believe they are non-existent.

The bottom line is we are all free to make our own choices of how to describe our beliefs. I claim "agnosticism". I claim "atheism". I claim "ignosticism". And I claim apatheism. Each of those describes my regard for various claims made regarding 'gods'. So I leave you to your pure agnosticism. I definitely do not claim that.

[ApeNotKillApe]

'The store is open' is a statement I understand. Don't know what 'gods exist' is even supposed to mean.

Same result, suspension of judgement. No belief, either way. Both have roots in Pyrrhonic scepticism. 

Sextus Empiricus:

“Let the Dogmatists first agree and concur with one another that god is such and such, and only then, when they have sketched this out for us, let them expect us to form a concept of god. But as long as they do not settle their disagreements we cannot tell what agreed-upon conception we are supposed to get from them.”

“Furthermore, if we go by what the Dogmatists say, even if we form a conception of god it is necessary to suspend judgment concerning whether he exists or does not exist. For it is not pre-evident that god exists.”

So discounting gibberish as gibberish is a 'suspension of judgement' so long as said gibberish is posed as a question.

What's your opinion on the fggralgaspibbling of xandanglulate?

[Jesster]

Or, they didn't like me saying "I'm not a fan", got offended, and went on a crusade to tell me how I'm wrong. Perspective matters, I guess. 

Lol nope. I was having fun with you. Do you need a band-aid?

[GrandizerII]

Your wording confused me.

If I have a belief that "God exists" is true, then I also have a belief that "God does not exist" is false.

But I get what you're saying now.

Like Jesster was saying a belief is either on or off. My point is that more than a single belief/non-belief is in play, based on an objective question, rather than being dictated by a single subjective question. 

Objectively: the cat is alive (not dead) or that the cat is dead (not alive). Which means people have a few different options for what they subjectively believe. 

X = the cat is alive

Do you believe X is true?
Do you believe X is false? 

YN: alive-ist (belief the cat is alive, no belief the cat is dead)
NY: dead-ist (belief the cat is dead, no belief the cat is alive)
NN: agnostic (a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something; no belief the cat is alive, or dead)

In some rare cases, you might find yourself a Schrodinger...

YY: Schrodinger (belief the cat is both alive and dead)

Sure, you can dictate a single question, as Jesster does ... saying "the question is" ... and, only offer two options, but that's the false dichotomy. 

Do you believe X is true?

Y: aliveists + Schrodinger
N: deadists + agnostics

Being a deadist and being an agnostic are two different things. It's nonsensical to consider an agnostic a weak/negative/soft deadist, or a deadist a strong/positive/hard agnostic.

Well, we can make this even more complicated by including questions of knowledge. Do you know X is true? Do you know X is false?

Also, do you believe X is probably true? Do you believe X is probably false?

[Jehanne]

I label myself solely on a fairly abstract concept of "god" beings, the same way I'm agnostic about the existence of "alien" beings. Yes, a Superman comic appears to mainly be a work of fiction, and isn't evidence for the existence of "alien" beings. I'd more than happily argue against having "Truth, Justice, and the American Way" dictated as moral law. I wouldn't like to see people threatened with eternity in the Phantom Zone, in an attempt to scare them into believing in Superman or following that moral law. I wouldn't like to see The Adventures of Superman taught in school as fact. I wouldn't like to see Supermanists dictating who we can and can't marry, or have sex with. Etc. 
However, a Superman comic also isn't evidence for the non-existence of "alien" beings. Even pulling out thousands or millions of sci-fi "alien" beings and showing them all to be fiction, will never have addressed whether, or not, "alien" beings actually exist. And, I'm sure not going to bother labelling myself over every different sci-fi "alien", just the single bare bones fairly abstract concept behind all the stories. 
Thanks for having me.

I think that Huxley was an agnostic atheist.

[TheoneandonlytrueGod]

The whole post(s) is/are gibberish.

Man created god(s) not the other way around. I am, by that definition a theist.

If one insists god(s) created men (both sexes) then I am an atheist.