gnostics, huh? how hard is it really to decipher tree of knowledge anyway?

@bbyrd009 The important thing for ME is to tell the difference between what I think and what I know. I know water is wet, but not is there is intelligent life on other planets. It seems likely, but I won't know it until I see definitive proof.
It's not possible to believe IN water, it simply is. But it is possible to believe IN extraterrestials; a lot of people do. But I don't. Similarly, I don't believe in 'god,' because for one thing who knows what IT could be? To me it's the Explanation for existence itself. Is it possible we'll some day discover the answer, gain that knowledge? Maybe, but I doubt I will in this lifetime.
So is it the 'Tree of All Knowledge?' Or the Tree of Some Knowledge? Or just the Tree of What is Knowable?
Atheists pretend to know things they don't, by defining a 'god' as a certain absurd thing, then scoffing at the idea by equating it with other obviously absurd things. My feeling is we can't possibly know what, if anything, 'god' really is, just like we don't have an explanation for the existence of life.
By deriding discussion about it, we deride ourselves and make ourselves small and irrelevant, among many other negative things.
Just a few thoughts.

@Storm1752 to that i would say "welcome to Unknown God," but few are comfortable with an undefined Creator i guess

"So is it the 'Tree of All Knowledge?' Or the Tree of Some Knowledge? Or just the Tree of What is Knowable?"
just guessing myself, but i suspect the passage is meant to express how (especially western thinking) ppl become "know-it-alls," as you have already indicated, whichever kind of "believer" they are, atheist or "christian"

I don't see how it would be possible to keep something like that "in your home".

@JeffMurray It does feel like that.

@PadraicM No, I mean, how can you possibly not have a belief you hold, especially one that huge, not inform your actions in any way shape or form? I think that's likely an impossibility.

@JeffMurray I suspect that we are working with different ideas of "keep it in the home." My thought for that phrase is that they practice it, but they don't try to regulate laws/statutes/rules based on their belief. If they are in a private community (e.g. church or even parochial school that follows their flavor of belief), they sure, people who attend those communities are signing up for it of their own volition. My concern is where they try to force others to drink their flavor of Kool-Aid. Obviously, I intend this as a general statement as it doesn't get into the weeds about "what about their kids" and similar. And yes, it would be next to difficult for some sects as they believe they are supposed to spread the word of their faith and bring all people on earth to their "truth." For more cultural religions folks, it wouldn't be as hard to do.

@PadraicM I mean as soon as you vote, how can you possibly know if your religious beliefs have informed your decision or not?

Give ME objective evidence it doesn't

@Storm1752 [en.wikipedia.org]

@Storm1752
I'm not the one making the claim.

@Storm1752 While we're at it, I would like to see the objective evidence you never fucked a goat. Thank you.

@Storm1752 Can YOU provide Objective and Subjective evidence that is BOTH Proven and Unfalsifiable that ANY God/s, Goddesses have EVER existed?

@Storm1752 we can never prove a negative

Using Agnosticism as a rhetorical weapon is the height of cynical, manipulative, obnoxious dishonesty.
Either be genuinely agnostic or shut up

@Storm1752 Agnosticism is not a tool it is a position wrt belief. Neither is it cynical nor dishonest. How could it be dishonest when it is certainly about "NOT KNOWING"amongst other things. It would be good to hear the originator of the post to whom. I suggested that if I were doing it I would use the above tactic. If that person does not use it I will not be offended. I might try again so I will not shut up ,thank you.

Can't the same be done with atheism? Sam Harris eloquently explained that EVERYONE knows what it's like to be an atheist in regards to thousands of gods, many of which they outright reject without knowing the first thing about them. The only difference between you and them is that you don't believe in all of the same gods they don't, plus one.

@JeffMurray My only complaint about atheism is that it carries so little information about a useless belief. It is good that it is there but personally I play its use down a bit.. Agnosticism is a useful position with many linkages to follow to view a wide range of perception errors.

@Mcflewster That's fair. But you don't see trying to carry the same attitude about unicorns and leprechauns as you do about god a useful belief/strategy?

@JeffMurray Believe it or not leprechauns served a purpose. You may never have needed them but if they were not needed then the word would have died away centuries ago. Atheism is important and will remain important but I see it as [JUST?]a marker on an important journey that will see the end of religion.

@Mcflewster 'Needed' is a strong word. Can you support that claim?

@JeffMurray You may not have needed leprechauns because fortunately you can explain weird happenings without them. We can only educate those without those skills . Is this the claim you meant?

@Mcflewster The water is getting muddy.
I was asking why you don't think the same attitude toward mythological creatures would be equally viable for god. (i.e. there is the exact same amount of empirical evidence for god as there is for leprechauns, thus I don't believe in god the same way I don't believe in leprechauns.)

I believe the word 'need' threw me off. No one has ever needed leprechauns.

@JeffMurray I think we had better just agree to disagree on this one . Obviously it depends on the degree of need for anything but if there are zero degrees of need in the world over something, they would not have invented the word and they would not exist. This applies to the word and concept of God. Yes I do prefer to swim in clear water.

@Mcflewster Just because something exists or was imagined and was subsequently named does not provide proof of need for said thing. Just my two cents.

@JeffMurray Religion will not have disappeared until the word god has never been used for one year after its full explanation by science. Banning it will be counterproductive.

We are really NOT Disagreeing with each other. Our differences are in the degree of involvement to establish a NEED. Start a separate post???

@Mcflewster I don't know if anyone else is interested in this, but we can try... What defines death as one year of no use?? For a second, imagine there was no current belief in any god, but we still used the word when discussing greek mythology, wouldn't that invalidate that arbitrary cutoff point?

@JeffMurray Once again could we have a separate post ?because it is now getting complicated but I am very interested in it

Too wordy.
Care to clarify, simplify your reply?
Keep it brief. Nobody wants to wade through a doctoral thesis

Ignore him. If someone isn't willing to read 4 small paragraphs of what you have to say, they likely are, and will forever remain, ignorant fools.

@JeffMurray My thought exactly. The questioner may well be really interested in the subject, and therefore deserves a good reply if possible.

The problem with that rerjoiner is it's laughably, transparently bogus. Portraying any possible 'god' that way is not only ridiculous, it's insulting. It signals to your fellow conversant you're not interested in a serious discussion and, worse, are an unstable demogogue with delusions of genius with no evidence, all horse and no cattle.

@Storm1752 Strange. I thought Michael that Neo-deists do not fawn upon their god? I therefore have problems with your "it's insulting". From my perspective it is not possible to insult something that does not and never has existed!
Of course my analogy is intendedly ridiculous - as ridiculous as the proposition that a god is real and for xtians s/he has a son & biggest laughter of all a holy ghost.
It signals to the conversant that I do not consider that they have presented a serious topic for discussion - they have insulted my intelligence but provoked my sense of humour.
Thank you for provoking 5 minutes interest on this beautifully sunny Saturday morning that thanks to the C19 virus is delightfully unpolluted by the sound of traffic. A topic that we possibly have concurrence on.

You were doing great then blew it.