I keep wondering what you people who call yourselves "agnostics" on here claim to be agnostic about. You say "The existence of God". What's "God"? I just see 3 three alphabet letters there. Elsewhere I've seen where people have written that row of letters and said it means the row of words "creator of the universe". But for the life of me, I can't think of anything that any of those rows of alphabet letters or words refer to for you guys to be agnostic about. Please fill me in. I can't claim to be either a theist, an atheist, or an agnostic. The fact is that the sounds "God" or "creator of the universe" rings no more of a bell in my head than the sound "Zoz" rings in my head -- other than the fact I've observed that the sound "God" seems to trigger certain emotions and behavior in people who call themselves "theists", whereas the sound "Zoz" does not seem to do that to them.
I am agnostic about the creation of the universe because there is no evidence of natural or other origin. I am not agnostic about the 4000 (est) religions and spritual traditions known to man (see link) because there is no evidence of deity. Therefore they are all constructs.
What's wrong with my asking people to describe the mental concept they claim to have for the words "God" (capitalized, not "god" ), "Yahweh" and "Allah", when spoken by a Christian, Jew or Muslim? I simply do not have any mental concept for it. If you do, then wouldn't it make more sense to just describe it for me than to CHEW MY ASS OUT FOR ASKING IT?????
Neither Atheism nor Agnosticism are specific to any deity, let alone the Christian God. One word refers to the lack of belief in a deity or deities, the other as to whether or not it's even possible to know if one exists.
The difference between them is subtle, but one is not contradictory to the other.
Good point about this word and the reaction people have. Change the word God to "Gerald" and how would people react? "Gerald loves me. I'm agnostic about Gerald. Son of Gerald born of a virgin. It's the Will of Gerald." Gerald is just a sound formed in our brains expressed in speech. So is God. The word is used to provoke an emotional response. But it's just a word, a sound. Atheists like me either never have had, or have expunged, an emotional response to this sound. It's just a sound. It doesn't mean anything.
Why do you need to be filled in? Like most of us here, you live comfortably without deities and the common words use to label them. Being defined as an agnostic simply means one realizes we have many fellow humans who won't give up their fantasies and religious cultures. We can live with that as long as they don't try to influence politics or education.
Letters and words are symbols: upon which we hang meaning. Those symbols then take on meaning and emotion depending on context. If I say "goddammit" here on this site, chances are it will go totally unnoticed. If I said "goddammit" on a Christian Website, the hate comments would be down to the floor. The "N" word, a word I would never use, is considered highly volatile, but its all over the place in my iTunes playlist. Language if about way more than letters, words, and sentences... or sounds for that matter.
We don't believe there is some divine creator nor an "ultradaddy" that surveils and punishes us. I'm not getting into discussions of philology or semantics because I don't care about that, and I see you posted this only to argue with all the people that post comments. Why don't you create the Group "Languaje" and post it there!
I think maybe part of the reason you are having a hard time understanding the concept is that you are only giving credit to your own views and beliefs or lack thereof. When a person explains to you, for example, that they are agnostic, and that to them that means they have no definitive proof for or against a god or gods, and that based on that lack of proof they do not chose to pick a side, it isn't about weather or not a word has a particular meaning to you. Their response is to show what a word means to them, or makes them feel. It doesn't have to resonate with you in order to do so with them. It seems that you understand quite well what these people's replies mean, you just don't agree with them. That's ok. We don't all have to agree.
i'm not an agnostic. i'm an atheist. i still feel you may be addressing the likes of me, here. not everyone defines god the same way. some think "god is everywhere," meaning there is some kind of spirit in trees and clouds. others think he (always male, huh?) is a creator of universes. still others thing he, she or it is a caring entity who either controls things on earth or listens to prayers and either grants or denies them. i don't CARE. i don't believe in any supernational beings, be they leprechauns, all-knowing all-powerful creators, arbitors of who goes to the nonexistent heaven or the nonexistent hell in the nonexistent afterlife or just a spirit in a tree. it's all nonsense, and i have no emotional attachment to, or antipathy toward, any of it. i may have some antipathy to those who most energetically promoite it, and definitely toward those who blur the line between church and state.
by the way, "god" doesn't have three letters in every language. ALL words are just sounds. they hold whatever meaning, if any, has been assigned to them in any given language. the last part of your rant makes no sense at all. zoz. who cares?
I go back to Aristotle and his "Prime Mover" argument. In a chain of causality, where every effect has a cause, what is the prime cause? Is there a cause that is not the effect of another cause? St. Thomas Aquinas later used this argument to equate "God" with the "Prime Mover". "God" is a generic term to refer to a being that gives the universe purpose and intent, where otherwise everything would be random. In that context, exactly who "God" is is not relevant. Either such a being exists or it doesn't. As an agnostic, I would argue that I do not know enough about the nature of the universe to rule out the existence of the "prime mover". You can call it "Zoz" if you want, it doesn't change the argument. It just gives a verbal handle for the proposed supernatural entity.
If you really want to know and not just being antagonistic, you can review hundreds of previous posts from hundreds of posters and you will understand where many of the contributors are coming from.
If you are being antagonistic please post something more erudite with substance so that an intelligent conversation can be engaged in.
Most of us here are more interested in considered discourse to develop understanding on subjects we are not so well informed in, not point scoring or knockabout Laurel and Hardy style argument.
The God/Not God debate is s but tired and pointless in a ‘live’ situation. Please contribute more meaningfully.