Are you currently aware of God?
I don't know.
Because the reality of your position is that God does not exist.
So you keep asserting. But I am not your strawman.
All your reasoning stems from that. Otherwise you wouldn't need to ask for evidence.
It is requested to make a point. That you see it as systematic of a certain initial position is simply your lack of comprehension. You have built your strawman with that initial position, so anything you see as something your strawman would do you assume is because of the same initial position that your strawman has. That is fallacious reasoning on your part.
Given that it is the same tendency that leads to belief in belief in magic... it's a reasonable bet.
...because as far as you're aware there is no God.
So you keep asserting.
That is either what you observe, or what you read. Or both
What is? The awareness you insist I have that there is no God?
I accept what is written, and I accept what you say about your position.
No, you categorically don't. You can't look past your strawman, the caricatured atheist that you feel comfortable arguing against such that you insist every other atheist conforms to that view, whether they actually do or not.
I am looking at the basis of atheist reasoning.
Not very well, then, given that you can't look past your strawman.
There is no God for them to believe in.
So you keep asserting about their position. Just a pity it doesn't actually match the position most have. Oh, but it does match that of your strawman.
It's not that complex, Sarkus.
Indeed it's not that complex. So you shouldn't be afraid to try it sometime.
Not from your perspective.
Fromyour strawman's perspective, he would indeed lack belief in something that doesn't exist. Unfortunately I am not your strawman and thus far you have failed to correctly acknowledge my actual position, despite your claims that you accept hat I say about my own position. You do nothing but ignore it and continue on your merry crusade against your strawman.
How's that going, by the way?
Sarkus, you aren't aware of God, therefore God cannot actually exist from that perspective.
The first part is wrong, and the second part does not even follow from the first.
You say I am not aware of God, and I say that I do not know if I am aware of God or not. I might be, I might not be. If God exists and everything is simply am infestation of God then I am patently aware of God simply by existing. If God does not actually exist then what I observe has nothing to do with God.
Since I do not know whether God exists or not, how can I say I am not aware of God?
You keep asserting it, but then you are facing off against your strawman rather than engaging in this discussion.
That you think need evidence, and critical thinking, just to know that God Is, kind of gives that away.
Oh, wow, so now you think that the only way to know God is to divest yourself of critical thinking? Or better still to never have thought critically? Seriously? Do you see critical thinking as the enemy of God? If so, why did he give us this capability? Sheesh, you really know how to convince a guy, don't you!
That said, the request for evidence, and the use of critical thinking, do not lead me to conclude or even be aware of God not existing, as has been explained to you already.
So, final warning, Jan: either turn away from the strawman and start engaging with what people actually write, or just drop out and get a room with your strawman.
The agnostic view is an intellectual one.
All matters of belief and knowledge are intellectual. It is how we transfer those into actions that make it practical. One could quite easily have the intellectual belief that God does exist and act no differently than an agnostic or an atheist, or a theist. Sure, many theists' practical life is informed quite heavily by their theistic belief, but it is not a prerequisite.
So you can't avoid addressing agnosticism by declaring it merely an intellectual matter.
It states that we cannot know God, regardless of whether He exists or not.
As has been pointed out, agnosticism also covers simple lack of knowledge on a subject, not just the position that the subject is unknowable.
Nor, at its core, is either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist, or indeed the lack of belief in either of those.
It is how one lets those beliefs (or lack of) influence their practical lives that make them a practical matter. But the beliefs (of lack of) themselves are purely intellectual.
But if you want to start a thread on the practical manifestations of various beliefs, on the practical implications of belief that God exists, belief that God doesn't exist etc, then go for it. Here, however, we're discussing the actual beliefs and, specifically, the lack of beliefs, in God.
So your dismissal of agnosticism on grounds of not being practical is simply unwarranted.
Why do you struggle with the agnostic position so much?