<p>Hey Brian,</p>
<p>I think you misunderstand my approach to agnosticism as well as that of most theists and atheists. I am not certain that there is no deity, so if we want to get technical I’m a “tooth-fairy agnostic”. I understand that it is not possible to disprove the existence of a god in the same sense that it’s impossible for me to disprove the invisible pink unicorn. Who are you, or anyone for that matter, to deem one supernatural being more realistic than the other? The possibility of a leprechaun existing is the same as that of a deity, though their respective existences are not mutually inclusive. </p>
<p>For the third time (or fourth) I will reiterate that this thread is meant to address pure agnostics. Every rational theist and atheist is an agnostic in the sense that they acknowledge the epistemological dilemma of the debate. Unlike pure agnostics, who claim a neutral stance in all matters theological, theists and atheists will take a side when asked “Is there a god?”. It sounds like I’m stating the obvious, yet this basic separation between theories of knowledge versus belief does not seem to be getting through.</p>
<p>What is your position on Xenu? Do you consider him as viable a deity as the those of the other major religions? Consider the fact that he was contrived less than 60 years ago. If someone makes up a new deity tomorrow out of the blue, is that deity equally as viable? If your answer would be yes, then you’re probably a pure agnostic with absolutely no beliefs within the confines of this debate, which is puzzling to me. If you have some doubt and are inclined to think that neither Xenu nor the other contrived deity are as realistic as other deities, you are a de facto atheist, a tooth fairy agnostic. </p>
<p>I don’t think you understand what it means to be an atheist, and maybe I’m wrong about that. The post you made however leads me to believe you have the false assumption that rational atheists and theists alike claim to know with certainty whether or not god(s) exist.</p>
<p>
If you choose to be agnostic about all manner of supernatural beings, you have to acknowledge the ontological dilemma of that position. Your given definition of agnosticism states you would have to accept the unknowable nature of all metaphysical beings, not merely the religious figures. Your rejection of the possibility of werewolves and fairies contradicts your position on agnosticism.</p>