A childs personality with all its complexities is basically set by age five. Christian mommies and daddies plant that seed of an allmighty very early. Please recognize that and move on and embrace your freedom from this mindless nonsense and cherish this incredible feat of nature that is your existence. There is nothing there to get you if you are bad and no matter how hard you ask favors from a deity with your inner voice no magic will happen. However you can look at that tree you walk past everyday and never noticed and be astonished at its beauty. Do you ever look at the world we inhabit? I mean really look at it. Do you have a houseplant? Is it an accessory that you use or do you cherish the force that it is it's life. Do you help it flourish and thrive or do you just toss it if it wilts. That ignored tree will grant you more wishes than any deity. All that god dribble is a manufactured social necessity for the stupid. The stupid take a piss behind that tree.
Gnostic Atheism is the positive claim "There is no god." Agnostic Atheism is the negative claim "I do not believe in any god." One is asserting something we don't entirely have evidence for, and the other is a reasonable claim saying "I really don't know, but I haven't heard of any compelling evidence for any deistic case." Carl Sagan was like that, for example.
You can say anything is possible, you never know for sure that anything can not ever happen some day. By that logic, it's like saying you don't really know, but it is possible that invisible monkeys are flying out of your butt every minute. You just have no way of knowing it. Exactly like every claimed deity, you can't see, hear, smell, taste, touch or feel them.
There exists the same exact amount of credible evidence for flying butt monkeys as there is for invisible god figments, which can be shown to exist only in the imaginations of minds...... Zero. And no observable verification, justifying support or rational reason to think there is a supernatural deity. And regardless, until even a shred of testable evidence is found, the question is entirely irrelevant. There is also no evidence that a supposed deity has any effect on anything in our lives.
I choose to believe there is no deity. Makes no difference in the least whether or not that belief is based on absolute knowledge such as examining a tree, and knowing for a certainty that is exactly what we define as a tree. All logical evidence, and more so the complete lack of valid supporting evidence, supports the argument there is no deity. Just as there is no effective or constructive purpose to demand that fairies could exist, while stating there is no evidence of their existence. Nonsensical and fallacious thinking.
Agnosticism is similar to saying that you have no way of really knowing for sure that every time you drive your car, you won't die in an accident. And allowing such foolishly failing ridiculous surmising to influence and affect your decision to drive anywhere. Statistical evidence proves that 99.9% of the time you drive your car, you won't die. And only a very sight chance, that when you die, it will be in your car.
There is good reason that dictionaries list the following synonyms for the word agnostic :
baffled, confused, discomposed, disconcerted, distracted, disturbed, dubious, equivocal, faltering, flustered, hesitant, hesitating, in a quandary, in clouds, in dilemma, indecisive, irresolute, lost, not following, double-minded, perplexed, problematic, puzzled, reluctant, tentative, theoretical, troubled, uncertain, undecided, unresolved, unsettled, unsure, vacillating, wavering, without belief.
"Agnosticism is similar to saying that you have no way of really knowing for sure that every time you drive your car, you won't die in an accident. And allowing such foolishly failing ridiculous surmising to influence and affect your decision to drive anywhere."
Dictionaries are far from definitive when it comes to this particular semantic context of the word, the man who defined it is as authoritative a source as you're going to find, dictionaries included.
"In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable" (Huxley, Agnosticism, 1889).
"Dictionaries are far from definitive when it comes to this particular semantic context of the word, the man who defined it is as authoritative a source as you're going to find, dictionaries included."
No one here said dictionaries are the definitive source, those are your words. Though it is not intelligent to conclude that dictionaries are not are not an exhaustively researched, supported, debated, contested and excellent source for linguistic and even semantic agreed upon definition. Good reason need not be absolutely definitive. It would be hypocritical for agnostics to contend otherwise.
Excellent Huxley quote. No doubt, he read a dictionary or two in his time as consideration.
'No one here said dictionaries are the definitive source, those are your words"
Correct, further, I've never claimed any other than myself said these words, …so how is that bullshit?
"It would be hypocritical for agnostics to contend otherwise."
Says the guy arguing from dictionary synonym entries...
"Excellent Huxley quote. No doubt, he read a dictionary or two in his time as consideration."
…and coined the term, "Agnostic" as well. No lexicographers harmed, …or needed.
"Correct, further, I've never claimed any other than myself said these words, …so how is that bullshit?"
Excellent, I made my point demonstrating the bullshit by example. And better, you got it.
"Says the guy arguing from dictionary synonym entries..."
Meaningless, undefined, generalized ad hominem. The synomyms apply.
"and coined the term, "Agnostic" as well. No lexicographers harmed, …or needed."
And still for sure, Huxley read the dictionary.
"And still for sure, Huxley read the dictionary."
BTW, describing your argument from dictionary synonym entries, as an argument from dictionary synonym entries; is not an ad hominem argument fallacy. You ARE arguing from dictionary synonym entries!
Now, if you start quoting Ayn Rand in place of actual logic, …that whole "ad hominem" thing could change.
So, if you're a gnostic atheist, the burden of proof now lies with a contrapositive claim of absolute certainty, are you going to share your evidence?
A dictionary can be described as the dictionary. Your gnat straining semantic argument FAILS. I cited true example from the dictionary, which you ignore in specifics. Which proves that argument from dictionaries defeats your implied demeaning.
I did not quote Rand, no logic to your "if" statement.
I never said I was a gnostic atheist. Burden lies on you to prove your implied accusation. Or your insertion has no meaning other than diverting babble.
Ahhh… so you're an agnostic atheist?
Do you drive a car as well?
You bet I do, I see no reason to believe I will die every time I drive a car. Same as no reason to believe in a god.
Do you believe it's ok for you to drive a car, even though you are agnostic about whether or not you will die? By the same logic, it's ok to believe that a deity does not exist.
So now we got that out of the way, you like demanding proof. You state as fact that a god could exist. The burden of proof is on you. Present your evidence to support your claim. I'm interested.