You know one thing I really hate is someone else trying to tell me what I think or believe or don't believe. We are not talking about you being a god, we are talking about a god or gods existing. I lack a belief in that, some specific gods I think are absolute nonsense but am prepared to accept they are real if evidence is provided.

the mouse wrote:Yes, and the corresponding term here would be akin to "agnosticism".

Incorrect. Because I am not taking a view with regards to those things. I don't care. I'm not interested.

the mouse wrote:
You would be akin to "agnostic" in regards to my car ownership, and akin to an "atheist" in regard to me being a cyclops, as I would be regarding you as well.

Nope. I'm making no views regarding your car ownership. Were I to do so, adopting an agnostic position would be a nonsense, as it is something that could be known. That I might choose not to know doesn't make me agnostic either.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:I don't believe all gods must be imaginary. .

What God/s do you believe are not imaginary, or at least not part of a delusion?

the mouse wrote:

DarthHelmet86 wrote:I don't believe all gods must be imaginary. .

What God/s do you believe are not imaginary, or at least not part of a delusion?

Pretty much any god or gods that has not been described to me. As I said the potential for a real god or gods existing is what I lack a belief in, but don't say they can't exist. I also lack a belief in gods like the Christian god existing, I might think that the god in the Bible is a load of nonsense and made up but that doesn't mean I believe it doesn't exist. And once again I hate people telling me what I think or believe, I consider it very rude to do.

Sendraks wrote:\
Nope. I'm making no views regarding your car ownership.

You lack a belief, on whether I own a car or not. No matter how you cut it, this is exactly your position here.

Were I to do so, adopting an agnostic position would be a nonsense, as it is something that could be known.

Agnosticism is not dependent on whether or not something can be known at a latter time or not, it's only a matter if it's known, or unknown at the time in question. Theoretically anything can be known in some forceable future, under some forceable circumstances, but yet in regards to agnosticism, this does not matter. It's only a question of the present moment.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:

Pretty much any god or gods that has not been described to me.

So in regards to every God you do know of, that you have some idea of the description of, you believe all of them are imaginary? It's just in regards to some God/s that you likely have not heard of, that you have no opinion on whether they are imaginary, real or not?

I also lack a belief in gods like the Christian god existing, I might think that the god in the Bible is a load of nonsense and made up but that doesn't mean I believe it doesn't exist. And once again I hate people telling me what I think or believe, I consider it very rude to do.

If you believe the God of the bible is made up, it means you believe he doesn't exist. This is true by the very fact that you hold it as "made-up". You claim here is illogical, it's sort of like claiming I believe you're a man, but this doesn't mean that I believe you're not a woman.

the mouse wrote:You lack a belief, on whether I own a car or not. No matter how you cut it, this is exactly your position here.

To be agnostic requires one to take a view on the metaphysical concept of a deity and decide that it can't be known one way or the other.

My view in respect of your car ownership is - "I could know if I cared enough about it." Which is not agnostic.
Furthermore, your status of car ownership will be known to someone or some system somewhere on earth.

Athesims is the lack of belief in deities. The default position that every sentient is born with. No baby has a view that the existence of god is unknown or unknowable. They simply don't have any belief.

the mouse wrote:
Agnosticism is not dependent on whether or not something can be known at a latter time or not, it's only a matter if it's known, or unknown at the time in question. Theoretically anything can be known in some forceable future, under some forceable circumstances, but yet in regards to agnosticism, this does not matter. It's only a question of the present moment.

The claim for agnosticism is that certain things will either remain forever unknowable or are simply unknown at the present time, because of the limitations of what humanity can understand or perceive.

The existence of your car ownership is something that is readily knowable and well within the bounds of human understanding and perception. Choosing not to know something that is knowable. is not agnosticism.

Once again telling me how I must think. I lack a belief in a god or gods existing, simple as that. I do not believe they don't exist.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:Once again telling me how I must think. I lack a belief in a god or gods existing, simple as that. I do not believe they don't exist.

No, I claimed that what you purport to believe about yourself is illogical. Believing something is made-up, means that you believe it does not exist, just like believing I'm man, mean you believe I'm not a woman.

Believe about myself? No I know what I believe and don't believe or what I have a belief in or not.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:No I know what I believe and don't believe or what I have a belief in or not.

If you believe that the God of the Bible is made-up, but this doesn't mean that you believe this God does not exist, than your belief is illogical.

Says you. I can accept that I might be wrong, that while I think it is made up that it isn't, or that while it was made up turns out it was still right. I think those chances are slim, so I lack a belief and am open to be presented evidence that proves that I should have a belief.

the mouse wrote:

DarthHelmet86 wrote:No I know what I believe and don't believe or what I have a belief in or not.

If you believe that the God of the Bible is made-up, but this doesn't mean that you believe this God does not exist, than your belief is illogical.

Tehcnically it is possible that the god of the bible exists but noone actually knows about it, and that some person simlpy by accident made up a god that corresponds perfectly to that god. There is no contradiction there.

Rumraket wrote:[
Tehcnically it is possible that the god of the bible exists but noone actually knows about it, and that some person simlpy by accident made up a god that corresponds perfectly to that god. There is no contradiction there.

1+1=5, is not illogical.

Because technically one can represent one, 2.5oz bag of coke, and the 5 could just mean 5 oz in total.

the mouse wrote:

Rumraket wrote:[
Tehcnically it is possible that the god of the bible exists but noone actually knows about it, and that some person simlpy by accident made up a god that corresponds perfectly to that god. There is no contradiction there.

1+1=5, is not illogical.

Because technically one can represent one, 2.5oz bag of coke, and the 5 could just mean 5 oz in total.

What does that have to do with anything I've said?

Rumraket wrote:
What does that have to do with anything I've said?

Because you're reasoning behind, why believing that something is made up, does not mean it doesn't exist, is not illogical, is akin to the reasoning provided as to why 1+1=5, is not illogical. In fact we can likely wiggle our way out of any nonsensical, or absurd claim using the same sort of methodology.

the mouse wrote:

Who are these agnostics? I am an agnostic atheist, as are many of the members of this forum. So your claim that those who identify as agnostics don't consider themselves to be atheists is wrong

Uhm, all the agnostics that classifies themselves as agnostics, but distinct from atheists, such as those who self-identify on surveys as such.

People can self identify all they want, but self identifying as simply agnostic is wrong. Agnostic is not a category unto itself. It's more an adjective than a noun.

Huxley who coined the term agnostic, didn't consider himself an agnostic atheist.

That's exactly what Huxley considered himself.

I have never had the least sympathy with the a priori reasons against orthodoxy, and I have by nature and disposition the greatest possible antipathy to all the atheistic and infidel school. Nevertheless I know that I am, in spite of myself, exactly what the Christian would call, and, so far as I can see, is justified in calling, atheist and infidel. I cannot see one shadow or tittle of evidence that the great unknown underlying the phenomenon of the universe stands to us in the relation of a Father [who] loves us and cares for us as Christianity asserts. So with regard to the other great Christian dogmas, immortality of soul and future state of rewards and punishments, what possible objection can I—who am compelled perforce to believe in the immortality of what we call Matter and Force, and in a very unmistakable present state of rewards and punishments for our deeds—have to these doctrines? Give me a scintilla of evidence, and I am ready to jump at them.

This whole trend of defining agnostics as in one camp or the other, is also recent, popularized by the God delusion. Prior to that the common understanding, self-identficiation, was that the two were distinct terms.

Not really. Not if you use the term in its true sense. Agnostic does not imply not having decided, or I don't know. It means I can't know.

Are you not aware of this shifting in understanding of these terms, that occurred more recently than you think?

What I am aware of is that the term atheist until recently was defined by theists who wanted to define atheism in the worst possible terms. Someone that believes that God does not exist, someone that hates God. But neither of these are true. Does not believe in God is very different from believing that God not exist. And it's asinine to think that someone that hates God is an atheist but, it's done all the time.

The shifting of understanding with regards to agnostic is the real problem here. Huxley's use of the term implied atheism on his part, and since he invented the term I think we should respect his usage. Huxley wasn't simply agnostic, he didn't believe, making him an atheist, as he admitted. And a true skeptic in that he said, "Give me a scintilla of evidence, and I am ready to jump at them."

Oldskeptic wrote:What I am aware of is that the term atheist until recently was defined by theists who wanted to define atheism in the worst possible terms.

Indeed, it has been a defining characteristic of Theism to try and impress their viewpoint on atheists throughout history, leaving the atheist with little option but to have to qualify their position.

Stating "I don't believe in gods" historically only provoked theists to ask "why" and then provide a load of non-explanations to justify the theist p.o.v.

Rumraket wrote:

the mouse wrote:

DarthHelmet86 wrote:No I know what I believe and don't believe or what I have a belief in or not.

If you believe that the God of the Bible is made-up, but this doesn't mean that you believe this God does not exist, than your belief is illogical.

Tehcnically it is possible that the god of the bible exists but noone actually knows about it, and that some person simlpy by accident made up a god that corresponds perfectly to that god. There is no contradiction there.

The gods described in the Bible are explicitly interactionist and interventionist. If a being that could meaningfully be described as "God" actually existed without anyone having knowledge of it, then that god is - quite explicitly - not one of the ones described in the Bible.

the mouse wrote:1+1=5, is not illogical.

Because technically one can represent one, 2.5oz bag of coke, and the 5 could just mean 5 oz in total.

If, however, some hypothetical person were to simply say that 1+1=5 without explaining up front that one side of the equation referred to bags of coke and the other to the number of ounces, then they would clearly not be behaving in an honest manner. They would be being either extremely dishonest or impossibly dense.

Even if they did explain this up front, they would still be behaving bizarrely. The normal way to express this would be 2.5+2.5=5 (where both sides refer to ounces) or 1+1=2 (where both sides refer to bags).

I don't understand what point you were trying to make here. It seems that you are making a defence of a style of discourse that is at best unclear and quite likely dishonest.