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.
As a side note, do you consider yourself a gnostic atheist or an agnostic atheist?
(I am aware he didn't answer the burden of proof demand)
I explained my stance on agnosticism above. Of course, as we have seen, people can make the claim that anything is possible, including god existence. I stated that I choose to believe that god does not exist, based on the evidence, and more so on the lack of supporting evidence. This is not a gnostic claim.
I find the argument that god could possibly exist as irrelevant as arguing for fairies and leprechauns. None of the three has any actual affect whatsoever on our existence.
Irrelevant posting, as signified by your lack of comment. Another diverting red herring on your part.
"You didn't ask that question."
"Still waiting for the proof of your claim."
What claim? please cite.
Do you believe god could possibly exist?
If you don't believe a god exists, yet state you don't know, then why do you believe that?
Are you now going to try to pass off a non-belief, ...as a belief?
The trouble here is the word belief. Try substituting "act as if it were true" or "factor the concept into my choice of actions"... and you'll see that the "agnostic atheist" position is reasonable and consistent.
the "agnostic atheist" (and GOD I hate the labels) is simply taking the LaPlacian position, when asked "Where does God fit into all this?"
"Sir, I have no need of that hypotheses."
It's a meaningless question, and I don't assert "God" so therefore I don't have to make any claims about whether or not he exists.
"GOD I hate the labels"
It's easier if you think of them as positions and not identities.
Works for me.
Excellent points Rob. "act as if it were true" or "factor the concept into my choice of actions" are quite different stances than stating it is impossible to know.
Acting as if something was true would be a gnostic position, not agnostic. If something can be shown to be true, it is known, not unknown. Same w/ acting as if it is shown to be true.
What concept are you factoring into your actions? That the position is agnostic and impossible to know? You are correct, the agnostic position is totally meaningless in regards to affecting actioins. With no need of claim whatsoever.
It has no affecting influence in reality. Only in the imagination of minds.