Vote.. on this atheistic position

[Deleted member 619]

Joe, Hack, play nice.

We are playing nice, if a little rough. There is no acrimony here, just playful banter.

 

[>< V ><]

Swing and a miss, chuckles. I assign no truth value to the existence of gods, I merely remain unconvinced. Nothing more. I'm no saying it's not true, just that I haven't seen anything to believe it is.

Do try again though, without the strawman.

Do you believe God exists?

If you answered yes, you inductively assigned a truth value and are theist.

If you answered no, you inductively assigned a truth value and are atheist.

If you answered, I don't know, you assigned no truth value and are agnostic.

Do you believe God exists?

Agnosticism is not a position?

Yes it is, it's a position regarding the possibility of knowledge. Specifically, it is the position that knowledge is not possible, even in principle, with regard to a specific proposition.

Of course it isn't, because atheists try to define themselves as the true skeptics.

No, we don't try to define ourselves as anything. We are skeptics, by definition, with regard to a specific set of claims.

If I claimed there exists underwear on my body right now, how would you address my claim?

Well, I'd be tempted to take it on face value, for several reasons; first, this is not an extraordinary claim for a human (assuming you are, in fact, human). Second, you are not basing an entire view of the world, with attendant attempts to define legislative and political strictures, on the basis of whether or not you are, in fact, adorned in lingerie.

Would you be a theist and support the existence of my underwear?

Are you suggesting that your lacy nightwear is a deity? If not, then your personal fetishes are not a matter of concern for the atheist, whose only characteristic is the rejection of truth claims, and extraordinary ones at that, concerning the existence of invisible magic men who, in spite of the inherent contradiction in such a position, suggest that all that exists was created by some entity whose existence is not merely asserted, but asserted against all logical barriers to said existence.

Of course, if you wish to assert that this entity can exist in spite of logical contradiction that suggests otherwise, then I invite you to do so. This would begin with the provision of suitable evidential support for this entity, and a robust explanation of why this entity is unfettered by logical constraints. The problem then becomes, of course, that you would have to employ logic in order to support an entity that is allegedly free from said constraints, somewhat fucking your own argument up the arse in the process. Can't fucking wait for that.

Would you be an atheist and deny the existence of my underwear?

Oh look; it's bad fucking analogy time.

Even were your scrot-sack to be a deity, no I would not. I would merely suggest that you present evidence a) for the existence of said dick-truss and b) that your cock-sling was actually divine in any sense. Perhaps you've heard of this; it's called skepticism. If you were not claiming your knob-hammock to be a god, and that it were merely a device for keeping your tackle in check, then I would rely on the time-worn principle of male humans keeping their john-thomases in such a receptacle and simply move on to more interesting matters. Up to you. Are your Y-fronts god?

Or would you say, you know what, I really don't need to answer this question right now and being that I have no information to answer it, I will refrain from answering?

Well, the first thing to note is that none of your fatuous bollocks actually needs to be answered. It might do, if it constiuted anything remotely resembling a cogent argument but, as it is, it requires only scorn and derision, since it attempts to conflate acceptance of the existence of the receptor of your skid-marks with an entity capable of creating existence (if this is not your deity, please say so, and I'll fuck that one over as well).

Which is the most logical position?

You want to talk about logic here as if you understand the first fucking thing about it? The hubris on display here is galactic. After erecting the fatuous, sophomoric example of failure of logic above, you purport to be in a position to teach the critical thinkers her about logic? Are you having a fucking giraffe?

No one is forcing you to assign a truth value to the existence of God. You choose to answer it yourself with insufficient information, otherwise known as faith.

No, faith is required to adopt a position without evidence. The critical thinkers here adopt no position with regard to the existence of a deity, except where the existence of a particular deity is defeated by logical necessity. I don't know (although maybe I should) which particular celestial peeping-tom you support, but state your case, and I'll be happy to show that it doesn't exist. None of the fuckwitted conceptions of deity propounded by the terminally credulous do, and I can demonstrate this to be the case.

Would you like a shot at the title? I'm all yours.

This is all irrelevant dribble, because you are responding to something that I wasn't saying. I'm using examples of the same argument form. I'm not comparing context as you clearly believe.

I'm not making an analogy between 2 and 4, but showing how they can be used in the general form y = 2 * x. Understand?

No, because if you did, I wouldn't be explaining this again.


Here is the general form.

I claim 'A' exists.

One can believe 'A' exists.
One can not believe 'A' exists.
One can not know what to believe about 'A's existence.

As average atheists, you argue for a false dichotomy that there are really, only two choices.

I am arguing that this isn't logical, by using the same argument form, but in different contexts and demonstrating how there are clearly cases where atheists do accept the third position. And being that the choices of the general form are independent of the definition of 'A', makes it is thus, not logical to dismiss the agnostic position simply because A = God.

As an example, I gave my underwear.

A = on my body, underwear

I claim 'on my body, underwear' exists.


As another example, I hold, concealed in my hand, an abnormal six sided die and I claim I will eventually roll a nine with it.

A = 'a nine on this abnormal die'

I claim 'a nine on this abnormal die' exists.

How do you answer this claim? Are you going to disbelieve the claim, even though my die could easily have all nines on it? Are you going to believe the claim, even though there are an infinite choice of numbers that could be on the die? Are you going to tell me these are the only two choices or is there a third that is "I don't know what to believe" ?



As another example, I claim 'that a relationship between relaxation times for the magnetic response of a spin-glass and an intrinsic homogeneous non-Arrhenius behavior' exists.

Do you believe that? Disbelieve that? Or don't you know what to believe?




As my final example, I claim God exists.


Are there two choices on how to answer or three?






Claims to me are like driving down the road and coming to a fork in the road. I can either turn left (true), turn right (false), or sit there and think about which direction to go (I don't know). But according to the average atheist, I have to "keep moving", I have to turn left or right NOW!

This is not the skeptic position. A skeptic hasn't chosen a road to go down. They are still sitting at the fork in the road, thinking. But as atheists, you have chosen to turn right. You have concluded, that the road that goes right is the one that will lead you to the truth. And as average atheists, you haven't chosen to turn right because of evidence that suggests that road is the correct path. No, you chose to turn right almost solely based upon the logical fallacy, argument from ignorance. You see no evidence to turn left and you see this as evidence to turn right.

As another example of what a skeptic is, claims, whether looked at through fuzzy logic or inductive reasoning, can have a spectrum of beliefs. On one extreme are the true supporters. On the other extreme are the true deniers. And exactly in the middle are the skeptics. Skepticism is the middle position between fully supporting and fully denying.

The main reason, to me, that the average atheist denies the agnostic position as valid, is because they want to occupy the middle ground, even though they have clearly chosen a road that leads to one of the extremes. And what manifests from this position, is that since atheism is the "apparent" middle ground and atheism is about "disbelief", that "disbelief" must be the "middle ground". Hence, why your average atheist argues disbelief is the default position. That disbelief is simply the middle ground. When clearly, disbelief means you turned right in the fork in the road and chose the path that leads towards denial.

If you don't believe this, then ask yourself, is your position on God really the middle ground between the two extremes of support and denial?

If it is not, then clearly, you are not a skeptic.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Do you believe God exists?

Can't answer until you define god. Please do.

 

[>< V ><]

Do you believe God exists?

Can't answer until you define god. Please do.

God is the consciousness that created the universe.


Do you believe the universe was created by a consciousness?

If you answered yes, you inductively assigned a truth value and are theist.

If you answered no, you inductively assigned a truth value and are atheist.

If you answered, I don't know, you assigned no truth value and are agnostic.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

God is the consciousness that created the universe.


Do you believe the universe was created by a consciousness?

If you answered yes, you inductively assigned a truth value and are theist.

If you answered no, you inductively assigned a truth value and are atheist.

If you answered, I don't know, you assigned no truth value and are agnostic.

Except that's actually sort of dumb, the way you phrased it. I can't really answer "I don't know" to a "do you believe" question about anything that I've given thought to. You can't say that you don't know what you believe. You can say you don't know what a fact is, but you can't adopt a position of agnosticism about your beliefs.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Can't answer until you define god. Please do.

God is the consciousness that created the universe.

Doesn't seem like a very good definition. What if there is another universe? What if there are many? Do they each have their own god? What if someone from one universe found a way to create another? If tomorrow Dr. Krauss discovered a technology able to create a universe? Would that make him a god? What if he devised a means to make many - perhaps infinite - universes? Wouldn't that make him more powerful than god? And what of the many, many beings described as gods throughout the ages that clearly did not create this or any other universe? Are they not gods?

Further I task you to demonstrate that it is possible to have a consciousness without first having a universe. Seeing as how everything we know about consciousness indicates that it requires both time and matter to operate, and these are emergent properties of the universe.

Do you believe the universe was created by a consciousness?

No more than I believe it was created by an eggplant.

If you answered yes, you inductively assigned a truth value and are theist.

If you answered no, you inductively assigned a truth value and are atheist.

If you answered, I don't know, you assigned no truth value and are agnostic.

And if I relentlessly mock the language of the question?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

And if I relentlessly mock the language of the question?

Then I'm going to ask you for proof and evidence that atheism is accurate and correct. :lol:

 

[australopithecus]

God is the consciousness that created the universe.

That's not a definition, I'll clue you in as to why. Consciousness, is not a definition, it's a description. If I described Da Vinci as 'the consciousness that created art" I have not described anything. I've just given you a specific attribute of Da Vinci. You've defined absolutely nothing. Do try again.

Do you believe the universe was created by a consciousness?

Until you can provide a better definition and description of God then I cannot answer the question honestly. However I'd love to see the evidence you have of your undefined conscious God creating, or doing, anything. Ever.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

God is the consciousness that created the universe.


Do you believe the universe was created by a consciousness?

If you answered yes, you inductively assigned a truth value and are theist.

If you answered no, you inductively assigned a truth value and are atheist.

If you answered, I don't know, you assigned no truth value and are agnostic.

Word of advice: before using words like "theist", "atheist" or "agnostic", try and look them up. Ya know, it might actually teach you something about what they mean.

 

[DepricatedZero]

yada yada yada atheism/theism is a false dichotomy there is also agnosticism

I'm not going to rehash something that I've bludgeoned to death. Here's my argument, if you care to review it.
http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=5587

You, sir or madam, are a thought-evading liar of the highest caliber.

 

[>< V ><]

Except that's actually sort of dumb, the way you phrased it. I can't really answer "I don't know" to a "do you believe" question about anything that I've given thought to.

Do you believe my hair is parted in the middle?

Take your time, I want you to give it as much thought as you think necessary.

OK, now that you've had enough time to think about it, what's your answer?

If you choose belief or disbelief, then my next question is, what piece of knowledge allows you to make the distinction between "I believe" and "I don't believe" ? Sitting there in your chair, what knowledge can you offer that demonstrates some distinction between my hair being parted in the middle and not? If you cannot distinguish the two, which you cannot, then you have no rational basis for your belief or disbelief.

If you still want to form your belief or disbelief, that's fine with me. But either without some rational basis of knowledge is faith.

Doesn't seem like a very good definition. What if there is another universe? What if there are many? Do they each have their own god? What if someone from one universe found a way to create another? If tomorrow Dr. Krauss discovered a technology able to create a universe? Would that make him a god? What if he devised a means to make many - perhaps infinite - universes? Wouldn't that make him more powerful than god? And what of the many, many beings described as gods throughout the ages that clearly did not create this or any other universe? Are they not gods?

I see no relevance to your questions. If you have a problem with my definition, then clearly state what that problem is.

Seeing as how everything we know about consciousness indicates that it requires both time and matter to operate, and these are emergent properties of the universe.

I agree, assuming anything outside of the universe is highly problematic. Not just a consciousness, but anything. But in the end, this gets us no where, because all creation hypotheses face this challenge, whether they be religious or from "potential emerging science" (ie, multiverse, branes). Again, I agree with your point, but this can't just end the debate. We can't just pack up our bags and call it quits, just because we might have to postulate something outside the universe.

This is sometimes what it's like when trying to understand the unknown. We postulate various ideas to see how well the hypothesis fits the facts. And if the hypothesis works well, the postulate gains credibility, no matter how counter-intuitive the postulate may seem. And due to the enormous challenges of creation, the origins of the universe, this may be our only strategy for trying to understand the beginnings, for many, many centuries.

No more than I believe it was created by an eggplant.

So by your own admission, you give equal weight to the possibility that the universe was consciously and non-consciously created. 50% chance of conscious creation and 50% chance of non-conscious creation.

That is agnosticism.

That's not a definition, I'll clue you in as to why. Consciousness, is not a definition, it's a description. If I described Da Vinci as 'the consciousness that created art" I have not described anything. I've just given you a specific attribute of Da Vinci. You've defined absolutely nothing. Do try again.

If that is not a quality of God that defines "it", then what are you atheist about?

Until you can provide a better definition and description of God then I cannot answer the question honestly.

Then your atheism is a lie. Because you already answered the question with atheism.

Seriously, what is wrong with you? How can you be atheist yet, not know what you're atheist about? Is it not true, atheist, that what you don't believe, is that God is a consciousness that created the universe?

I know, I know, you want a simple definition of God that's easy to refute. Like God is all loving, yet there is evil in the world. But such simplicity is for simpletons. Maybe it's about time you elevate your understanding and address the crux of the matter on whether or not the universe is a conscious creation, instead of constantly focusing on the different clothes people dress God in.

 

[>< V ><]

yada yada yada atheism/theism is a false dichotomy there is also agnosticism

I'm not going to rehash something that I've bludgeoned to death. Here's my argument, if you care to review it.
http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=5587

You, sir or madam, are a thought-evading liar of the highest caliber.

Of course I am. How original.

I've reviewed your arguments and here are my conclusions. You are putting forth the standard atheist spectrum of beliefs.

Strong Theist - I know god exists
Theist - god probably exists
Weak Theist - I believe we can never know, but god probably exists
Weak Atheist - I believe we can never know, but god probably doesn't exist
Atheist - god probably doesn't exist
Strong Atheist - I know god doesn't exist

Clearly, there is no middle position. Notice how there are transitory stages for theist and atheist, yet, theist to atheist has no transition. You just wake up one day and *BANG*, "Hey guys, I'm atheist!"

Or does a conversion look more like a political spectrum? Which has a middle.

Strong Conservative
Conservative
Weak Conservative
Independent
Weak Liberal
Liberal
Strong Liberal

When legislators vote, how many choices do they get?

Yes
Abstain
No

What can happen with jurors?

Guilty
Hung jury
Not guilty

The reason these examples have a middle position is because logic does not discount the possibility of a 50-50 split, even though atheists do.

Gheez, I really like social liberal positions, but I prefer fiscal conservatism. What am I?

Man, my state really needs the money, but the project is for a waste disposal dump. How should I vote?

So let me get this straight, 5 of you think he's guilty and 5 of you think he's innocent. How should we rule?

Oh great, assuming the universe was conscious or non-consciously created are both problematic. What should I believe?

We've all come across cases in life where we say, "Wow, I just don't know." And there are two cases of this. One could be that you have no information and simply cannot find a rational basis. OR you have information from both sides and still cannot find a rational basis.

My position on God is the latter. I have information from both sides. Sometimes I argue as an atheist (especially at theist forums) and sometimes I argue as a theist (especially at atheist forums).

But people like me, clearly, do not fit in your atheist spectrum. As I said with my road analogy, I'm sitting at the fork in the road, collecting as much information as I can, to see if I can find some rational basis for making a choice on which road of belief to go down. And since I see no hurry in having to make this choice, I choose not to hurry and continue to collect information.


1) Am I a weak atheist because I say things like, when there is no knowledge, there is only speculation? And when there is only speculation, there are infinite possibilities to speculate. Since we have no knowledge on how the universe came to be, means the chance of God being true is thus, 1 / infinity which has zero probability of being true. Like an ancient Egyptian trying to guess how to get to the moon, that guess will never be a rocket ship. Like a number line, where the truth lies at 100, but we can only speculate around 0 to 3. Our speculative ability is simply too feeble to even guess in a realm close to the truth. Thus, if you can speculate an origin to the universe, then it's not true. Only with knowledge can this change. What we don't know how to even speculate yet, is where the truth lies.

2) Because I say things like, science has shown again and again that Gods have been natural events and that there is good reason to believe the next God will be a natural event?

3) Or am I a weak theist because I say things like, there is good reason to believe the physical laws is evidence of conscious design? That there is an abstract logical framework to the univere that is a known result of consciousness, mathematical logic. Can the non-conscious create math? Can the non-conscious create the abstract logical framework of the universe?

4) Because I say things like, thee primary goal of life is survival and this could create Gods? That after billions of years of human evolution, when the human race faces the ultimate test of survival in a dying universe, where the only option for survival will seemingly be escaping the universe, what if we do it? How do you know the universe isn't an incubator of Gods, waiting for some intelligent life to crack the outer shell?

Am I some form of atheist that argues for God? Am I some form of theist that argues against God? Does a theist or atheist simultaneously believe in something like the above four statements I stated, like I do?

Do atheists and theists really believe in arguments that support and deny God? Or are their arguments both, one sided?

This is exactly what seperates people like me from theists and atheists. This is a agnostic position. Not that I have no knowledge, but that I have insufficient knowledge to form a rational basis for a belief. Believing as I do in the above four statements (as well as others) puts me in contradiction, which is why I cannot form a rational basis. And a belief with only an irrational basis is faith.

Thus, to say I'm a theist or an atheist is to force upon me, faith. Faith I don't have.

You, sir or madam, are a thought-evading liar of the highest caliber.

And forcing faith upon others while eliminating their choice, is what fanatics do.

Your average atheist tactics are obvious. You can't handle that people like me represent the true skeptics, because almost the sole driving force in modern atheism is to redefine atheism as the skeptic position. Because in your simpleton mentality you actually think you can walk and talk the way you do and then redefine that as what a skeptic is. Someone that only argues the disbelief of God.

Your actions and beliefs define your position, not what words you choose to create a definition. And atheists walk and talk only the disbelief in God. It's that action that defines your atheism. And only arguing one side of a debate is not the skeptic position.

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

Your actions and beliefs define your position, not what words you choose to create a definition. And atheists walk and talk only the disbelief in God. It's that action that defines your atheism. And only arguing one side of a debate is not the skeptic position.

This is why some people start with a Null position and work from there. In my mind a null position would constitute a lack of belief in something or a lack of correlation between something observed and a very specific effect.

Carry On.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

Doesn't seem like a very good definition. What if there is another universe? What if there are many? Do they each have their own god? What if someone from one universe found a way to create another? If tomorrow Dr. Krauss discovered a technology able to create a universe? Would that make him a god? What if he devised a means to make many - perhaps infinite - universes? Wouldn't that make him more powerful than god? And what of the many, many beings described as gods throughout the ages that clearly did not create this or any other universe? Are they not gods?

I see no relevance to your questions. If you have a problem with my definition, then clearly state what that problem is.

Perhaps you need to work on your definition of clear, because I just did. Your definition of god both does not apply to the vast majority of entities described as gods, and could conceivably apply to humans (or creatures similar to humans.) If that doesn't strike you as a problem then I label you a sophist.

Seeing as how everything we know about consciousness indicates that it requires both time and matter to operate, and these are emergent properties of the universe.

I agree, assuming anything outside of the universe is highly problematic. Not just a consciousness, but anything. But in the end, this gets us no where, because all creation hypotheses face this challenge, whether they be religious or from "potential emerging science" (ie, multiverse, branes). Again, I agree with your point, but this can't just end the debate. We can't just pack up our bags and call it quits, just because we might have to postulate something outside the universe.

This is sometimes what it's like when trying to understand the unknown. We postulate various ideas to see how well the hypothesis fits the facts. And if the hypothesis works well, the postulate gains credibility, no matter how counter-intuitive the postulate may seem. And due to the enormous challenges of creation, the origins of the universe, this may be our only strategy for trying to understand the beginnings, for many, many centuries.

You seem to have missed the point. It is not merely that you have assumed something outside of the universe, rather it is that what you have proposed as being outside of the universe is something we know itself requires the universe. I question your judgment if this was not immediately obvious to you, and your intellectual honesty if it was and you simply chose to ignore it.

No more than I believe it was created by an eggplant.

So by your own admission, you give equal weight to the possibility that the universe was consciously and non-consciously created. 50% chance of conscious creation and 50% chance of non-conscious creation.

That is agnosticism.

I contend that no fair-minded person would approach this conclusion from what I wrote.

 

[australopithecus]

If that is not a quality of God that defines "it", then what are you atheist about?

Gods. try and keep up. You have failed to define one specific god. Many others have defined gods, and given those definitions I lack faith in those gods. Hence atheism.

Then your atheism is a lie. Because you already answered the question with atheism.

I answered the question broadly and generally, as I have not been present with a coherent definition of god and the defintiions of god I have been given still haven't convinced me gods exist.

Seriously, what is wrong with you? How can you be atheist yet, not know what you're atheist about?

Again, gods.

Is it not true, atheist, that what you don't believe, is that God is a consciousness that created the universe?

I'm more than willing to accept a conciousness created the universe if sufficient evidence for those assertion is present. However that you are calling said consciousness God, and then failing to define that god, is your own problem. I see no reason, if a consciousness did create the universe, to call that thing god. Could have been a lab experiment gone wrong. Doesn't make whoever pushed the button a deity.

If you define God as a simple lab technician in another universe who accidentally flicked the wrong switch and created a universe then I'd concede it's possible, but I'd still want evidence and I'd still not call that lab guy God.

I know, I know, you want a simple definition of God that's easy to refute.

A coherent definition would be nice.

Like God is all loving, yet there is evil in the world.

Again, that's not a definition.

Maybe it's about time you elevate your understanding and address the crux of the matter on whether or not the universe is a conscious creation, instead of constantly focusing on the different clothes people dress God in.

Ok then, provide evidence for a consciousness creating the universe.

 

[Sparky]

...and given those definitions I lack faith in those gods. Hence atheism.

This is just an aside but I have been pondering the validity of defining an atheist as "one who lacks belief in a god/gods."

Surely if atheism can be defined as above, a theist should be able to be defined as "one who lacks disbelief in a god/gods?" i.e. the opposite of the definition of atheism provided above. This definition of a theist now encompasses those who claim to lack belief in a god but who are unwilling to claim that they believe no gods exist just as the definition of an atheist does.

This, to my mind, lends credence to there being a middle ground that should not belong to either atheism or theism.

Is there merit to this?

 

[tuxbox]

...and given those definitions I lack faith in those gods. Hence atheism.

This is just an aside but I have been pondering the validity of defining an atheist as "one who lacks belief in a god/gods."

Surely if atheism can be defined as above, a theist should be able to be defined as "one who lacks disbelief in a god/gods?" i.e. the opposite of the definition of atheism provided above. This definition of a theist now encompasses those who claim to lack belief in a god but who are unwilling to claim that they believe no gods exist just as the definition of an atheist does.

This, to my mind, lends credence to there being a middle ground that should not belong to either atheism or theism.

Is there merit to this?

Theism = theos (Geek for god or deity) + ism (A belief that can be described by a word ending in -ism). It literally means god belief.

Theist = theos (Geek for god or deity) + ist (One who follows a principle or system of belief.)

So, no your definition does not have merit.

 

[australopithecus]

This is just an aside but I have been pondering the validity of defining an atheist as "one who lacks belief in a god/gods."

Surely if atheism can be defined as above, a theist should be able to be defined as "one who lacks disbelief in a god/gods?" i.e. the opposite of the definition of atheism provided above.

That would be a tautology, surely? By definition someone who holds a positive belief in something would lack disbelief with regards to that thing. Seeing as theism is the positive claim one who does not accept that is, by definition, atheist. The prefix 'a-' denotes a lacking, now with regards to atheism it could equally apply validly to someone who holds a positive opinion that there are no gods, or to someone (like me) who holds no belief in gods but does not hold any positive opinion.

 

[Anachronous Rex]

...and given those definitions I lack faith in those gods. Hence atheism.

This is just an aside but I have been pondering the validity of defining an atheist as "one who lacks belief in a god/gods."

Surely if atheism can be defined as above, a theist should be able to be defined as "one who lacks disbelief in a god/gods?" i.e. the opposite of the definition of atheism provided above. This definition of a theist now encompasses those who claim to lack belief in a god but who are unwilling to claim that they believe no gods exist just as the definition of an atheist does.

This, to my mind, lends credence to there being a middle ground that should not belong to either atheism or theism.

Is there merit to this?

That logic seems a little desperate to me. Generally speaking the suffix 'ist' ought to apply to a positive belief, which is one reason I don't really like the word 'atheist' because its meaning is thereby disputable. Clearly it doesn't refer to a positive belief either in original usage or in etymology, but the 'ist' ending entreats people to think otherwise.

That said I don't wish to profane those who call themselves agnostic, I find ZOMGitsCriss logic here to be quite reasonable.

 

[Demojen]

Do you believe God exists?

If you answered yes, you inductively assigned a truth value and are theist.

If you answered no, you inductively assigned a truth value and are atheist.

If you answered, I don't know, you assigned no truth value and are agnostic.

Do you believe God exists?

What is God? What is conciousness? What is exists?

You can't define something using itself as the definition. That is circular logic. To say God is the creator of the universe you have to first establish the Universe was created. You can't simply say it was because you believe it...Oh wait, sure you can...but that's indefensible and not scientific at all. By the same logic I can support the existence of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

Now I'm not trying to throw you into a vacuous hole of philosophical BS, but to get you to see how your entire approach to this dichotomy is flawed. You're assuming that there can only be one of three answers .Either God exists or God does not exist to someone or they don't know.

Answering with "The irrigation ditch upside and horse pung" is every bit as legitimate an answer to the question "Do you believe God exists?"...

The question is utterly ridiculous.
There's no answer that is appropriate to the question.
Do you believe there will be cake?

Agnosticism is not an "I don't know" position.
Agnosticism is a "I can't know and neither can you" position.