You're losing me with the "theist" reference, because that would define one believes in God, accepting on connot know whether or not what they believe to be true is true.
There is a difference between “knowing” and “believing”.
Still cornfused. If you aren't sure, then that would, by my definition anyway, put you as agnostic. If you choose to side with the no-God theory more than the possibility of a God existing, then I sort of understand, but I'm finding it hard to believe the two are the same, which the hyphen implies. It's like the whole Mormon-Christian argument. This assumes Mormons and Christians are the same thing. If I asked whether or not you liked chocolate more than vanilla, you could say you like them both the same and a mixed version in one cone, but that's feasible since they are both ice cream. If you said you like chocolate-vanilla, it assumes chocolate is vanilla, when that would sort of imply you liked chocolate mixed with vanilla, though there is no flavor called chocolate-vanilla, but rather either chocolate or vanilla, and if you use chocolate –vanilla, it would be a flavor you just made up to define your preference... you know what I mean?
I’m not going to rehash the Mormon/Christian question with you again due to the fact that you already demonstrated yourself to be impervious to reason on that point.
Once again, agnosticism has to do with whether or not certain knowledge is accessible by human beings. Radical agnosticism would claim that human beings can’t really “know” anything about anything, due to our limitations. While I think a good argument can be made for that, practically speaking, that seems too radical. But there is no doubt that human beings are not capable of knowing certain things. There’s even a debate in the scientific community about whether or not it is possible for human beings to truly understand the brain, much less god.
A good analogy to illustrate this is the Flatlanders essay. Flatland is a two dimensional world inhabited by flat shapes. Some among them claim that a third dimension exists, and once every thousand years they are actually visited by a sphere from that third dimension. However, due to the limitations of being two dimensional beings, they do not understand what the sphere is. They see such a partial view of the sphere, and a changing view of the sphere, as it bounces in and out of their dimension, that the resultant picture is fundamentally distorted. Sometimes the sphere looks like a point, sometimes it looks like a circle. It is not until one of the Flatlanders is actually transported to the third dimensional world does he begin to understand what the sphere is. In other words, due to the fact that their world, and everything they understand about the world, is two-dimensional, they cannot grasp three dimensions unless they are actually transported to a three dimensional world.
If a godbeing exists, he/she/it would be so fundamentally different from human beings that the difference would be far greater than the difference between two dimensions and three dimensions, but the analogy is still adequate. If a godbeing exists, any information about it we could ascertain would be through the limitations of our two dimensional world, hence, we can know nothing about the three dimensional godbeing. While we may “see” a point, a circle, appearing and disappearing, we know nothing about its nature – not even enough to call it “god”.
Let’s try another analogy, this time from Star Trek, The Next Generation. There was a character on that series called Q:
Q was a highly powerful entity from a race of immortal, godlike beings also known as the Q.
Q appeared to the crews of several Starfleet vessels and outposts during the 2360s and 2370s. All Starfleet personnel of command status are briefed on his existence. He typically appears as a Humanoid male (though he can take on other forms if he wishes), almost always dressed in the uniform of a Starfleet captain. (VOY: "Death Wish")
In every appearance he demonstrated superior capabilities, but also a mindset that seemed quite unlike what Federation scientists expected for such a powerful being. He has been described, in turn, as "obnoxious," "interfering," and a "pest". However, underneath his acerbic attitude, there seemed to be a hidden agenda to Q's visits that seemed to have the best interests of Humanity at their core – although this opinion cannot be directly proven. On a planet called Brax, he was known as "The God of Lies". (DS9: "Q-Less")
When temporarily rendered Human by the Continuum, Q spectacularly claimed to possess an IQ of 2005. (TNG: "Deja Q")
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Q
There would be absolutely no way for a human being to distinguish between a superior alien race like Q’s and a “god”. Likewise, two dimensional creatures can’t distinguish between three dimensional creatures, much less four dimensional creatures. We just cannot transcend the limitations of our own dimension.
If God spoke to you, you'd know without question. If you witnessed God, the "possibility" of God is now conclusive. You can believe God exists, or chose to believe God doesn't exist. The difference between an agnostic vs. an atheist in my opinion is the conviction to that belief, as either cannot be validated and we can’t “know” if we are correct.
If God spoke to me, all I would “know” would be that I perceived some being that I identified as “God”. I would have no way of knowing if that “god” were truly a “god” in the Judeo-Christian viewpoint, or if he were Q from an alien race. It would be impossible for any human being to make that distinction. And if God “spoke to me” in the way that God seems to speak to most human beings, ie, via an entirely internal event, there is absolutely no way for me to differentiate between an external being appearing to me, and my own mind creating the entire scene.
You cannot rise above your level, in other words. An ant can’t grasp the existence of a human being, but a human being can grasp the existence of an ant. Likewise with God and mere mortals.
Most atheists I've known are mad at God for whatever injustice they believe a "loving" God wouldn't inflict on them... just my take on them and it's not assumed I'm correct.
I’m glad you concede that you may not be correct. You are absolutely incorrect with every atheist I’ve ever known, including myself. I would no more be mad at God than I would be mad at Santa Claus for not giving me presents on Christmas.
But it's a given that we cannot know, so I go back to the conviction to that belief. Again, to me atheists are agnostics that just choose to believe that there is no rational possibility that God exists, knowing that they cannot know, which is why I find your hyphenated example hard to digest. An agnostic simply claims to not know or make a decision in my opinion.
Yes, it is a given that you cannot know, although this seems to contradict your earlier statements on this same point. If you truly accept that you cannot know, then you are agnostic on this issue. Being agnostic does not mean that one cannot believe in God, it just means the agnostic agrees with you that it’s a given that you cannot know, and there is a difference between “knowing” and “believing” and “faith”.
Now you just have to accept that one can take the stance that it is not possible to know, yet either believe or disbelieve.
by the way, I have no more chosen to believe there is no rational possibility that God exists than I have chosen to believe there is no rational possibility that Santa Claus exists. You don’t choose to believe there is no rational possibility that Santa Claus exists, you simply recognize that there is no rational possibility that Santa Claus exists. No “choice” in the matter.
