Abstract All landforms on Titan that are unambiguously identifiable can be explained by exogenic processes (aeolian, fluvial, impact cratering, and mass wasting). Previous suggestions of endogenically produced cryovolcanic constructs and flows have, without exception, lacked conclusive diagnostic evidence. The modification of sparse recognizable impact craters (themselves exogenic) can be explained by aeolian and fluvial erosion. Tectonic activity could be driven by global thermal evolution or external forcing, rather than by active interior processes. A lack of cryovolcanism would be consistent with geophysical inferences of a relatively quiescent interior: incomplete differentiation, only minor tidal heating, and possibly a lack of internal convection today. Titan might be most akin to Callisto with weather: an endogenically relatively inactive world with a cool interior. We do not aim to disprove the existence of any and all endogenic activity at Titan, nor to provide definitive alternative hypotheses for all landforms, but instead to inject a necessary level of caution into the discussion. The hypothesis of Titan as a predominantly exogenic world can be tested through additional Cassini observations and analyses of putative cryovolcanic features, geophysical and thermal modeling of Titan’s interior evolution, modeling of icy satellite landscape evolution that is shaped by exogenic processes alone, and consideration of possible means for supplying Titan’s atmospheric constituents that do not rely on cryovolcanism.