you are describing me as well. well said and thank you

I’m not in love with the contrast of atheist to either gnostic or agnostic, as they orig addressed two completely diff concepts, but then I am not the arbiter of definitions, either. What I would say is that now that the definition of “agnostic” has been dumbed-down to “doesn’t know if there is a God or not” (since absolutely no one knows, nor can know, right), an essential concept has been lost, that is only poorly replaced (imo, mostly bc it is a put-down) by the term “dunning-Kruger” or something similar

And I only persist here as the concept is so central to self-knowing (and the Bible), ...tree of KNOWLEDGE of good and evil etc

love the advice though, think I’ll use it myself!

well, you say that, but may I suggest that the self is the easiest to fool, and that you have just chosen a syntax that makes you feel the best? You believe there is no God, right? And (you) might easily “worship” say money, or penis, whatever, regardless of any declarations about not having “religious” beliefs?

Love the meme btw

@bbyrd009 , copying from you "You believe there is no God, right? And (you) might easily “worship” say money, or penis, whatever, regardless of any declarations about not having “religious” beliefs?"

Ok first you mentioned about "penis" as "dick" or you mean "pennies" as coin?.

My apologies for forgetting about the god of money. (Created by human to control) Without humans there is no god or religion that exists.
Well if you are talking about money maybe I forgot about the god of money and the religion of capitalism. There is no human who resists touching him, seducing him, to hold him in his hands and acclaim him. The god of money is very powerful that can build, destroy, protect humans, animals and the whole planet Earth. I know this god of money was created by humans but Perhaps it could be said that it does exist because the world sees it, touches it, provides any need for a hungry human. The money god is with the human if he earns it in a job, robs in a bank or swindles people.
At least this god of money can defeat the invisible gods created by different cultures. If they exist, let me sit in the company of the god of money so that waiting for those invisible gods will not be boring.

@Cecilia2018 "Ok first you mentioned about "penis" as "dick" or you mean "pennies" as coin?"
dick
"Without humans there is no god or religion that exists."
hmm, i can't conclusively disagree, but how do you know?
"There is no human who resists touching him, seducing him, to hold him in his hands and acclaim him."
again, how do you know? None, zero? Are you sure?
"I know this god of money was created by humans but Perhaps it could be said that it does exist because the world sees it, touches it, provides any need for a hungry human. The money god is with the human if he earns it in a job, robs in a bank or swindles people."
yup, guess so
"At least this god of money can defeat the invisible gods created by different cultures."
well, or so you believe anyway, yes; i have a um diff perspective now, but it was quite hard-won, and i don't blame you your pov
"If they exist, let me sit in the company of the god of money so that waiting for those invisible gods will not be boring."
ah; well, existence used to infer that "objective evidence" was available? Now, i'm not so sure

@bbyrd009 , have a great time in your journey.

@Cecilia2018 and you as well

Yeah I'm not a fan of this kind of dialogue here or anywhere. This site is already unfriendly enough, why grill our own kind as to whether an agnostic has balls? All the pissing contests between agnostic.com members, beating each other over the head to dominate and prove intellectual superiority... who's more a bad ass atheist or whatever. I agree with you Cecilia, I don't care either. I was one of the first members of this group - it went downhill and never lived up to what I wanted it to be, just a friendly place where atheists and agnostics could keep each other company and NOT argue like this, especially with each other.

So, hopefully you get that there are other definitions for those up top, but I post to point out that whole populations were sacrificing their children to Molech, so whether he was “real” or not might be beside the point? As you kinda get into there in the middle I guess, nice imo

Ps, some good observations in there btw, but i would suggest that most mythologies were developed to forward truths to posterity, and we are maybe taking “gods” a bit more literally than they would have; as you say, Yah does not “exist” and is not trying to, as an empty room for a holy-of-holies likely even indicates

Like Lindsay Graham, you mean?

@David1955 Is he a Turd ball?

Doesn't to me. That's quite an abstraction.

Oh come on. There hasn't been a real atheist-agnostic blood bath around here for ages. Jeez I miss it. Anything is better than the tame old site this place has become. Now we're all 'middle of the road' don't you know. Nothing too extreme now, mind. Everyone's in the middle, just like admin likes it.

@David1955 Yes I like a bit of good debate, if you do too try Skado, he is wonderful for a good debate, You can find him in the religious naturalism group.

Having said that, I do not really do the atheist agnostic debate, but like to call myself a broard spectrum sceptic, and while we are talking about boring, he is my usual answer why.

ABOUT MUFFINS. I see that the issue of Atheist/Agnostic has been rearing its head again, as it does every few days, so since some people find this a bit tiresome, I thought that a post on muffins would be more interesting.

Suppose for a minute, and for the sake of argument only, that there is a god, and an afterlife, including heaven and a hell; and that the god chooses whether people go to heaven, or if some go to hell, in fact the whole theist deal. Not only that, but the criterion on which the god makes the choice is based on the type of muffins they eat. ( Note: “eat” not prefer, this is not about free will or anything like that.) People who eat lemon muffins go to heaven and people who eat chocolate muffins go to hell, with limbo for those who don't eat muffins at all, naturally.

Would that make a difference to your life ? Would you give up your chocolate muffins for an eternity of joy, and all the lemon buns after death you could ever eat ? Perhaps you would. But there is one vital thing that I forgot to mention about this god, which is that; this particular god, does not tell you about his thoughts on muffins, or how they affect your after life, in fact it keeps the whole thing a big secret just to itself, so that you have no way of knowing which muffins you have to eat.

Then in that case, of course, you could not make the appropriate changes to your life, or save your soul anyway. In fact muffins, the gods preferences and even that god, would not impact on your life at all.

The point is this. That a gods, souls, the afterlife etc. have no effect on anything, unless that god, or someone who knows, tells you about it, and you therefore have some knowledge of god's cake prejudices. Making this the big difference between religion, which pretends to offer knowledge of god the afterlife etc., and none belief which does not. Which is why the difference between atheists, humanists, agnostics and even deists, is so small and unimportant by comparison, because none claim any knowledge of gods preferences, and it is the pretence of fake knowledge, and of god given authority, which makes the big difference. Compared with that the differences between atheist and agnostic, even deist, are trivial to the point of vanishing.

@Fernapple yeah, I sometimes shock believers when I say that I do not believe in a God, and even if there IS a God I still don't care. To their shocked faces I say, does this God ever turn up, right any wrongs, protect the powerless, punish the evil, correct injustices, or even unambiguously reveal itself, its presence its purpose, or its intent? No. Never. So, if it is a God it is a non personal God and either cannot or will not do anything we might call good or positive. So worship is pointless as if belief. I mean every word of that.

@David1955 Very well put.

This atheist asserts of both the God of the Torah and the God of the Bible that neither can exist, and I further asserts that nobody has produced any falsifiable evidence of the existence of any other gods, goddesses, godlesses or trans-gender gods/goddesses.

@anglophone yes. We atheists keep making this point, but always it is ignored and the falsehood repeated that we atheists 'claim' that there is no God or are no gods, like some kind of arrogant assertion indifferent to any issue of evidence. Truly tiresome.

@David1955 You put it so very well: tiresome.

How could a lack of a picture possibly affect one's answer?

@Alienbeing don't tell me about courage when you have none. This is not complicated.

@Sticks48 Stop taking drugs. First you don't know me at all and therfore could not know if I had courage or not. Second, and more important, the subject matter is completly unrealted to courage.

@Alienbeing Number one...l was talking about HIS courage, not yours. Number two...He mentioned Agnostics not having any "balls". Number three...l will do whichever drugs l wish to do. Number four...Why don't you go back to your own planet, Mr Alien, and fuck yourself. Got that buckaroo?

@Sticks48 You were talking about "his" courage, not mine. That is odd since your answer was solely directed to me. You can continue to take drugs, however be mindful that they obviously affect your reasoning ability.

Last, buzz off you are a needless surface thinker.

@Alienbeing So even when l explain l was talking to you about him you don't get it. Then l notice you don't use your own picture either, but being a lawyer and from NC, l can see why. You would be better off if you were an alien.Talk about a waste of skin. GEEZ!

@Sticks48 Your explanation was incomprehensible. You addressed the remark to me, no one else, then you try to say you were referring to someone else.

What is your preoccupation with pictures? How does a picture give additional credibility to a statement?

Your second sentence seems to indicate jealousy as respects post graduate degrees, and last, I spent my legal career in New York City, only recently retiring to N.C. Does my choice of retirement venue affect anything in your weird opinion?

@Alienbeing Evidently comprehension is not one of your strong suits. Yep, you are a lawyer. Lawyers have done as much as anyone, maybe more than most, to fuck up this country.No wonder you hide your face. Aren't you special being one of over 50,000 lawyers in NYC. There are fewer hot dog vendors there, and l am sure they are more respected than lawyers. l could do this all day but l have a gig this afternoon. Enjoy your Saturday. ☺

@Sticks48 I never claimed to be special so did you infer I did? PLEASE point out that areas of exchange where I exhibited any degree of not comprehending the subject.

Please illustrate exactly what lawyers did to fuck up the country?

Hide my face? Ha, how about making it correspond to my chosen screen name? Do you lust to see my face? Why comment about it t all?

Last, you could do what all afternoon? Maybe you mean you can make absurd comments all afternoon.

@Alienbeing Boring! You are definitely a lawyer. You did not comprehend l was referring to the gentleman who wrote the post. Being an arrogant asshole, most lawyers l have known are, you assume l was speaking of you. Typical lawyer attitude. As l said, boring. We can toss insults at each other forever, but after awhile it becomes pointless. I don't like you and you don't like me, so let's just leave it at that.

@Sticks48 OF COURSE I did not think you were speaking of the original poster. What your little lind can't comprehend is why; it is because you addressed your reply to me. If you knew how to write, you'd make sense. Take a few courses., you need them.

I am sure you get bored easily, you probably got bored in the 7th grade and dropped out or school at that point. I'm not insulting you, I am stating the obvious, if I wanted to insult you, you'd know it.

@Sticks48 I see you refer to yourself a "very liberal". That explains everything. Being very liberal you can, and do express your emotions (very clearly illustrated in your replies) without ever referring to fact (also very clearly illustrated in your replies).

This also shows there is no need to insult you because you will fall all over emotions and never use fact.

Grow up.

@Alienbeing If you read the thread my answer was to you about him because you ask me the question about no picture, but since you are so self absorbed you assumed it was directed at you. How the hell did you get through law school when you could not figure out my answer and what I was referring to. I had not looked at your photo because I was on my phone and they are so tiny I didn't notice what it was. I got bored with you because you aren't interesting. I have met very few lawyers who were. For a long time I thought if a person was interesting they weren't allowed into law school , but I have met a couple I really like. I did try college twice, but that was really boring. It was either go live life or read about it. I chose the former. So you are just another right wing moron. No surprise there. You can't insult me because since there are fewer life forms lower than a lawyer it really wouldn't carry much weight.

@Sticks48 Your replies are so strange and disjointed, they simply cannot be answered iin a usual manner.

I got through law school by studying. Something you apparently could not do. I am sure you stopped college twice because you could not apply yourself.

I'm not right wing, nor Republican, I am realistic, unlike people who describe themselves as "very" liberal.

As I mentioned in my prviousl reply haven't tried to insult you, I just commented on what you said.

There might not be any pixies at the bottom of my garden, but I sometimes wonder if there are any pixies at my bottom.

@anglophone And if there aren't which one of them said, "Fargone bewdy let's POETS".

@anglophone ok, just don't get me started on leprechauns, ok? Just don't go there.

John is a fascist. Bill believes in democracy. Yes, labels are pointless alright.

@David1955 I said dickless, not pointless. Just as you can't understand the difference between dickless and pointless, it is obvious you don't seem to grasp the definition of labels either, at least in the case of Bill.

@Mofo1953 well when you use a stupid word like dickless, what can I say. At least pointless is a real word, meaning without a point or meaning. Dickless means without a dick. Try using more adult words. I find it helps in discourse between adults. Also the poster didn't say dickless: he said without balls, universally understood as lacking courage. And comparison of labels is neither pointless nor whatever you think dickless means. That was my point, and it was not pointless either.

@David1955 let me explain to you what dickless means because you are either a borderline cretin or just an obnoxious little uneducated troll who doesn't even know basic english or operates at a 5 year old level of understanding. Words are not stupid they are just words and if it has a meaning, as your feeble mind tried to describe your idiotic and moronic point, then by definition can't be "stupid." So, as you so painfully and redundantly obviously bray, yes, dickless means you do not have a dick. Either someone removed it, which would make you a eunuch or you were born without one which would make you either a female or a freak of nature. And just because you say your point is not pointless, which in itself is truly the lamest most pathetic defense of your point ever read in an adult forum like this, doesn't make it so. Really kindergarten level reasoning. Learn something by trying to educate yourself before you try to lecture people with cretinous childish reasoning as your last two incredibly stupid sentences reveal.

@Mofo1953 Quite

@Mofo1953 thank for your redundant and unnecessary definition of dickless. All those years I spent at university too. Oh well. Please note your rave has nothing to do with the poster's question, or atheism or agnosticism. Feel free to delete your previous comment like you did the one before. Prickleish character aren't you. Defense by offense, they call it.

@David1955 i do not need to defend anything you moron. Previous was not deleted but decided to change it/edit it to try and educate your ignorant ass. You might have gone to the university but it definitely didn't go through you, which proves once again the point that you can bring a thirsty mule to the river but that mule is too dumb or stubborn to drink the water.

Lordy! That is so nuanced I'm scratching my head very much considerably. I don't think I agree but I can't bring myself to say so.

@David1955 That is OK, I wrote in haste and could have been more plain. But I know you well by now, having read many of your comments and posts, I understand your atheisim and respect it greatly.

@Fernapple I was pulling your leg too.

@David1955 Worth remembering though the addage. "Wisdom is the willingness to seek nuance."

( Also leg pulling. Since I know you don't need to know that. )

" Agnostic Theist," a bit of an oxymoron imo.
Since AGNOSTIC means, by dictionary definition, a person who " has NO actual KNOWLEDGE/ is UNSURE of whether a God/Gods, etc, EXISTS, and,
Theist, also by dictionary definition , means that a person who believes/trusts/understands in the concept that a God/Gods, etc, ACTUALLY do exist.
Ergo and logically, etc, being both an Agnostic and a Theist in the same person is a conflict of ideas, thoughts, etc, would you not agree?

or for that matter gnostic atheists eh? But we are laboring under a difference of definitions i guess

@Triphid the two do not relate. One is belief one is knowledge.

@Tejas Yes, Theism IS belief, whereas, technically speaking, Agnosticism is, in most/some cases, neither a belief of nor a knowledge/understanding of, etc, etc.
Whereas, on the other hand, imo, Atheism, for the most part, is both a knowledge and an understanding that, by the usage of Logical thought and reasoning, etc, etc, NO God/s/Goddesses/Supreme Deities either have or ever have Existed EXCEPT in the minds of Human Beings.
Ergo, to put it plainly and simply imo, an Agnostic MAY simply be a person who 'is merely hedging their bets' so to speak.
I.e. and in other more simpler terms Undecided upon which way to actually jump.

But could you relate to metaphorical balls?

as a woman?

i guess a whole lot of work is being done to dumb-down the definition of “agnostic” to “doesn’t know if there is a God or not,” and as “knowing” v not knowing is such a central theme to our walk and consequently the Bible—tree of knowledge, etc—i guess i can see why? Insulting was surely the whole point i bet

why not?