Total Posts:57|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

~~Agnosticism~~

Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2008 10:54:48 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
Yeah, Agnosticism.
If any agnostics would like to justify how they can be agnostic i would like to hear it.

I believe that everyone is agnostic whether they admit it or not, so there is no reason to declare yourself to be agnostic. Its like saying you're a human being.

Please explain yourself my ears (or eyes) are open.

(:D :D
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2008 11:03:15 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/12/2008 10:57:53 AM, PoeJoe wrote:
I'm not agnostic, but agnosticism is a valid belief. It's okay to say "I don't know".

yay 100!

Well of course, bc no one knows and we should all be saying that. But the fact is you either believe or you do not. A or ~A. Saying you don't know is saying ~A, (that is unless you believe and admit you do not know.)
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2008 12:08:16 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
"
I believe that everyone is agnostic whether they admit it or not,"
Clearly, I'm not agnostic. I am quite firmly under the impression that I know, at least in relation to at least one conception of God (an agnostic is someone who holds that they don't know).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2008 1:54:12 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/12/2008 12:08:16 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
"
I believe that everyone is agnostic whether they admit it or not,"
Clearly, I'm not agnostic. I am quite firmly under the impression that I know, at least in relation to at least one conception of God (an agnostic is someone who holds that they don't know).

i'm sorry R_R but even you do not know, bc humans by their very nature are finite and limited beings. I knw how you love your little argument so, but it really proves nothing. God doesn't need to obey logic.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2008 3:05:07 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
The only thing is that Agnosticism is a viewpoint. Any rational person should be in way "agnostic" but unfortunately there's people out there like crazy religious people who actually believe with 100% certainty God exists.
Harlan
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2008 3:59:30 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
We can not be positive of anything, and atheism/theism are too certain about something much too fundamental for us to understand.

I may believe that there is probably no god (in that respect I am partially an atheist then), but I acknowledge that there is no way of being sure, so to be specific I am an agnostic.
Harlan
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2008 4:02:06 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
If any agnostics would like to justify how they can be agnostic i would like to hear it... Its like saying you're a human being.

So on the flip side, it would seem equally perplexing to you for someone to call themselves a human being. Tis not hard to "justify" saying you're a human.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2008 4:37:53 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/12/2008 3:59:30 PM, Harlan wrote:
We can not be positive of anything, and atheism/theism are too certain about something much too fundamental for us to understand.

I may believe that there is probably no god (in that respect I am partially an atheist then), but I acknowledge that there is no way of being sure, so to be specific I am an agnostic.

Any rational atheist wouldn't tell you they were sure that no god exists, in the sense of equating that to knowledge. So either we call all atheist "agnostic atheists", or just throw misconceptions of the word "atheist" away.
Logical-Master
Posts: 2,538
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2008 4:47:10 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
You guys are aware that you can be an agnostic theist as well, right? I keep getting the vibe that you think otherwise. If no, this should enlighten you: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2008 5:04:44 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/12/2008 4:47:10 PM, Logical-Master wrote:
You guys are aware that you can be an agnostic theist as well, right? I keep getting the vibe that you think otherwise. If no, this should enlighten you: http://en.wikipedia.org...

I call myself an atheist, even though i'm technically an agnostic atheist.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2008 6:25:58 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
"God doesn't need to obey logic."
Reality does. Therefore God=/= reality :D
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Lightkeeper
Posts: 50
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2008 7:05:47 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
What's an agnostic? Is that someone who has considered the evidence and arguments and says "I don't know"? Or is it simply someone who doesn't know?
If it's the latter, it's synonymous with "weak atheist"
If it's the former then it's synonymous with "strong atheist". That's because it would be someone who has been confronted with arguments both ways, has not been convinced to believe and by saying "I don't know" admits that he doesn't believe.
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2008 7:42:28 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/12/2008 6:25:58 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
"God doesn't need to obey logic."
Reality does. Therefore God=/= reality :D

Sorry but reality actually doesn't as observed through QM which actually acts in opposition to logic. :P
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2008 7:44:36 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
"
Sorry but reality actually doesn't as observed through QM which actually acts in opposition to logic. :P"

Uhh... how?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2008 8:22:06 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/12/2008 7:44:36 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
"
Sorry but reality actually doesn't as observed through QM which actually acts in opposition to logic. :P"

Uhh... how?

According to QM there are times in which a particle both exists and does not exist at the same time. Thus contradicting the principle of non-contradiction. The foundation of classic logistics.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Zerosmelt
Posts: 287
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2008 10:03:25 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
According to QM there are times in which a particle both exists and does not exist at the same time. Thus contradicting the principle of non-contradiction. The foundation of classic logistics.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

srry
that should have read: the foundation of classical logic.
LR4N6FTW4EVA
Posts: 190
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2008 2:51:15 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/12/2008 6:25:58 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
"God doesn't need to obey logic."
Reality does. Therefore God=/= reality :D

Umm...an omnipotent being by definition does not need to obey logic. That means even if we accept your postulate that reality must obey logic, an omnipotent being could be real, and not obey logic.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2008 4:09:02 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
"
According to QM there are times in which a particle both exists and does not exist at the same time. "

Only according to the Copenhagen Interpretation (which is not, by the way, by any stretch of the imagination proven). Keep in mind Shrodinger's Cat was intended as a critique of that interpretation.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2008 4:10:17 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
"
Umm...an omnipotent being by definition does not need to obey logic. That means even if we accept your postulate that reality must obey logic, an omnipotent being could be real, and not obey logic."
Um... no, because statement b. would if true falsify statement A.

Not to mention falsify everything else in the universe, since without the law of non-contradiction, there is no distinction between true and false statements :D.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Kleptin
Posts: 5,095
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2008 4:43:18 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/12/2008 7:05:47 PM, Lightkeeper wrote:
What's an agnostic? Is that someone who has considered the evidence and arguments and says "I don't know"? Or is it simply someone who doesn't know?
If it's the latter, it's synonymous with "weak atheist"
If it's the former then it's synonymous with "strong atheist". That's because it would be someone who has been confronted with arguments both ways, has not been convinced to believe and by saying "I don't know" admits that he doesn't believe.

Someone who has considered the evidence and concluded that it is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to know.

There's a very big difference between "I don't know" and "No one in the world can ever hope to know".
: At 5/2/2010 2:43:54 PM, innomen wrote:
It isn't about finding a theory, philosophy or doctrine and thinking it's the answer, but a practical application of one's experiences that is the answer.

: At 10/28/2010 2:40:07 PM, jharry wrote: I have already been given the greatest Gift that anyone could ever hope for [Life], I would consider myself selfish if I expected anything more.
Lightkeeper
Posts: 50
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2008 6:37:23 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/13/2008 4:43:18 PM, Kleptin wrote:


Someone who has considered the evidence and concluded that it is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to know.

There's a very big difference between "I don't know" and "No one in the world can ever hope to know".

Of course there is. A huge difference in fact. But what this would mean is that an agnostic can be a theist or an atheist. It's simply not relevant to the person's beliefs at all.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2008 6:23:19 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/13/2008 6:37:23 PM, Lightkeeper wrote:
At 10/13/2008 4:43:18 PM, Kleptin wrote:


Someone who has considered the evidence and concluded that it is IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to know.

There's a very big difference between "I don't know" and "No one in the world can ever hope to know".

Of course there is. A huge difference in fact. But what this would mean is that an agnostic can be a theist or an atheist. It's simply not relevant to the person's beliefs at all.

Ditto.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2008 11:21:30 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
If they hold it's impossible to have any knowledge, even about the likelihood, on which to base beliefs of theism or atheism, then it's relevant.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Lightkeeper
Posts: 50
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2008 1:20:33 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/14/2008 11:21:30 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If they hold it's impossible to have any knowledge, even about the likelihood, on which to base beliefs of theism or atheism, then it's relevant.

I disagree. Belief is not knowlege. Possiblity of belief isn't knowlege either. Nor is one contingent on the other.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2008 5:54:26 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/16/2008 1:20:33 AM, Lightkeeper wrote:
At 10/14/2008 11:21:30 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
If they hold it's impossible to have any knowledge, even about the likelihood, on which to base beliefs of theism or atheism, then it's relevant.

I disagree. Belief is not knowlege. Possiblity of belief isn't knowlege either. Nor is one contingent on the other.

Ditto.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2008 10:18:32 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
"Belief is not knowlege. Possiblity of belief isn't knowlege either. Nor is one contingent on the other."
The beliefs of an honest individual are contingent on knowledge, whether it be knowledge of likelihoods or knowledge of absolutes. The beliefs of a dishonest individual do not concern me.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Lightkeeper
Posts: 50
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2008 2:32:30 AM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/16/2008 10:18:32 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
"Belief is not knowlege. Possiblity of belief isn't knowlege either. Nor is one contingent on the other."
The beliefs of an honest individual are contingent on knowledge, whether it be knowledge of likelihoods or knowledge of absolutes. The beliefs of a dishonest individual do not concern me.

Would you say that lack of belief is also contingent on knowledge?
gonovice
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2008 12:21:04 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
I've considered myself agnostic for a while. To me its not saying that you don't believe in God, its saying you don't really know. I believe in God, I just don't know about the rest.
Lightkeeper
Posts: 50
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2008 10:27:16 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 10/18/2008 12:21:04 PM, gonovice wrote:
I've considered myself agnostic for a while. To me its not saying that you don't believe in God, its saying you don't really know. I believe in God, I just don't know about the rest.

Thus you are a dishonest individual in R_R's analysis :P