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.
In most dictionaries, the word "marriage" is defined as being between a man and a woman. Note how many of us disagree with this. The reason he's talking about dictionaries being important is
"There is good reason that dictionaries list the following synonyms for the word agnostic"
Though he may be over focusing. A more adequate metaphor between being agnostic and cars is indeed knowing it is within the realm of possibility that you will die in a car crash, and I suppose preparing for it. I prefer the title agnostic atheist simply as an intellectual precaution: I'm pretty sure there is no magic, but not 100% sure. Since I don't have any information about said magic, I'll just live my live assuming there isn't- or driving a care knowing that I very likely won't crash.
Excellent points, Kenneth. So glad dictionaries aren't like the bible, and do evolve and adjust as language and societal interpretion progresses. I agree, and hopefully we will reach a point soon where the definition of marriage can be corrected. But that does not mean that every word in the dictionary is incorrect. Or the major majority of the listed synonyms.
Because no one knows everything, there is a level of agnosticism, no matter how slight, in everything that cannot be proven empirically as factual. If you and I look at an actual tree, I doubt that you would say you can't know for sure that is a tree.
The point being, if there is absolutely no credible evidence observable that something exists, claiming that a possible 0.0000000000000000001^trillionth power chance it could, is meaningless and non effecting babble of pure imagination. So what, it's the same as worrying about dragons. Demanding that god could maybe exist is irrelevant affection at this time.
And just an open door for the Devil's manipulation. ;-)
IE: see religion.
Like I said, an intellectual precaution. I've made that argument plenty of times, but I've had plenty of people going "Well, there's always a slight chance". I just use it as a pre-emptive way of blocking off that particular argument that I've chewed through so many times. You've made a good point though, that can be stretched pretty far. It's the basis of the Pascal's Wager, in a way.
I don't want to misuse the term, but I think it's... "Igtheism"? That's basically what I'm reaching for.
I don't find the "slight chance" argument intelligent. Very easy to block by simple logic.
Pascal's Wager was debunked logically long ago. By his reasoning, one must hedge his bet and serve whichever god threatens the worst punishment. Further, you must parlay and serve any and all gods that threaten eternal punishment, in case you pick the wrong one.
I mean that the basic reasoning behind my argument for agnostic atheism is the same logic used by Pascal's wager. "There is a nonzero chance, so why not". Still, I like the fact that it's a very free grab. I don't live my life any differently and get to pass an argument about assuming what I don't have evidence for. All upsides, yay.
I feel as though I can find a better reason to support that, though. I'll reflect on it when I'm less exhausted.
Zero sum game theory? I agree, I consider it benighted thinking to assume anything that cannot be evidenced. That assumptive belief is why con artists are successful. IE: see bible and god invisible god claim religions.
Con artists depend on the premise of agnostic belief. You can't know, but it's possible the scam could be true, because it is impossible for you to know that it's not possible.
"Demanding that god could maybe exist is irrelevant affection at this time."
This is not an agnostic nor an agnostic atheist position.
It isn't about pointedly accommodating a vastly improbable possibility, it's about a lack of absolute certainty, period. It's how science works as well, …agnostic right to the core.
The claim that it is impossible to know whether or not god could exist is stating that it is possible that he/she/it could exist. If you felt it wasn't possible, you would not say it can't be known.
Science does not work by saying they don't know. Science did not make cars and planes work or send sattellites to Mars because they don't know.
The way science works is by the scientific method. Hypothesis derives from provable empirical knowledge, not stating you don't know. If it passes case testing, it then advances to anti-thesis and synthesis.
Refined w/ requisite of factually supportable evidence. Subjected to peer review and contesting. Then postulate can be added and advanced to acceptable theory.
Ok, I'll ask again. Why don't you believe god exists? Do you think it is possible for god to exist? Why?
"Science does not work by saying they don't know."
I give up.
"I give up."
Actually, you never started. You didn't claim a position, nor support one.
You didn't ask that question.
Still waiting for the proof of your claim.