Total Posts:127|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

you cant be an agnostic

izbo10V2
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2012 12:34:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
the stupidity is overwhelming. you either know ifyou beleive in god or not. its that fvckin simples fvktards
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2012 12:35:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm an agnostic. I neither believe nor disbelieve in a god.
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2012 1:03:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/1/2012 12:35:35 AM, Microsuck wrote:
I'm an agnostic. I neither believe nor disbelieve in a god.

Just curious. Do you say this because you don't know if God exist, or for a different reason?
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 12:59:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/1/2012 12:35:35 AM, Microsuck wrote:
I'm an agnostic. I neither believe nor disbelieve in a god.

I'd have to respectfully dispute this. Belief and disbelief are a true dichotomy. One either believes, or does not believe. One cannot simultaneously not believe, and not not believe. This is logically inconsistent.

Agnosticism and belief deal with two separate issues. I, as well as a large number of the population, ARE agnostic when it comes to the idea of god. A/gnosticism deals with KNOWLEDGE.

A/theism, in their most inclusive (and true) definitions, deal solely with belief. If one believes in a god/s, s/he is a theist, whether that be agnostic (no claim of knowledge) or gnostic (claim of knowledge). If one does NOT believe in a god/s, s/he is an atheist, whether that be agnostic or gnostic.

Therefore, I contend that no one can be SOLELY agnostic, and neither an atheist or theist because they are two descriptors of different concepts. For example, I am agnostic atheist.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 1:11:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/2/2012 12:59:31 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 4/1/2012 12:35:35 AM, Microsuck wrote:
I'm an agnostic. I neither believe nor disbelieve in a god.

I'd have to respectfully dispute this. Belief and disbelief are a true dichotomy. One either believes, or does not believe. One cannot simultaneously not believe, and not not believe. This is logically inconsistent.

Agnosticism and belief deal with two separate issues. I, as well as a large number of the population, ARE agnostic when it comes to the idea of god. A/gnosticism deals with KNOWLEDGE.

A/theism, in their most inclusive (and true) definitions, deal solely with belief. If one believes in a god/s, s/he is a theist, whether that be agnostic (no claim of knowledge) or gnostic (claim of knowledge). If one does NOT believe in a god/s, s/he is an atheist, whether that be agnostic or gnostic.

Therefore, I contend that no one can be SOLELY agnostic, and neither an atheist or theist because they are two descriptors of different concepts. For example, I am agnostic atheist.

This cannot be repeated enough.

If I ask: "Do you believe in God"

And you say: "I don't know"

Then you didn't understand the question.
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 1:14:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Actually, agnosticism is the most logical of all religious positions, in my opinion. Who are we to assert that we have 100% proof on what happens after we die? We simply do not know. And to say that we do know does nothing but hinder the possibilities, and brings disgrace to whatever it might be that brought us into existence. It's an arrogant mindset.

True intelligence is to admit that you do not know anything. The more answers you acquire, the more questions there are.
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 1:16:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/2/2012 1:14:23 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
Actually, agnosticism is the most logical of all religious positions, in my opinion. Who are we to assert that we have 100% proof on what happens after we die? We simply do not know. And to say that we do know does nothing but hinder the possibilities, and brings disgrace to whatever it might be that brought us into existence. It's an arrogant mindset.

True intelligence is to admit that you do not know anything. The more answers you acquire, the more questions there are.

Right, but belief and knowledge are two separate entities.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 1:17:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/2/2012 12:59:31 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 4/1/2012 12:35:35 AM, Microsuck wrote:
I'm an agnostic. I neither believe nor disbelieve in a god.

I'd have to respectfully dispute this. Belief and disbelief are a true dichotomy. One either believes, or does not believe. One cannot simultaneously not believe, and not not believe. This is logically inconsistent.

Agnosticism and belief deal with two separate issues. I, as well as a large number of the population, ARE agnostic when it comes to the idea of god. A/gnosticism deals with KNOWLEDGE.

A/theism, in their most inclusive (and true) definitions, deal solely with belief. If one believes in a god/s, s/he is a theist, whether that be agnostic (no claim of knowledge) or gnostic (claim of knowledge). If one does NOT believe in a god/s, s/he is an atheist, whether that be agnostic or gnostic.

Therefore, I contend that no one can be SOLELY agnostic, and neither an atheist or theist because they are two descriptors of different concepts. For example, I am agnostic atheist.

Agreed. But I've emboldened the mistake of grammar, in true Nazi fashion.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 1:22:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/2/2012 1:17:41 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 4/2/2012 12:59:31 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 4/1/2012 12:35:35 AM, Microsuck wrote:
I'm an agnostic. I neither believe nor disbelieve in a god.

I'd have to respectfully dispute this. Belief and disbelief are a true dichotomy. One either believes, or does not believe. One cannot simultaneously not believe, and not not believe. This is logically inconsistent.

Agnosticism and belief deal with two separate issues. I, as well as a large number of the population, ARE agnostic when it comes to the idea of god. A/gnosticism deals with KNOWLEDGE.

A/theism, in their most inclusive (and true) definitions, deal solely with belief. If one believes in a god/s, s/he is a theist, whether that be agnostic (no claim of knowledge) or gnostic (claim of knowledge). If one does NOT believe in a god/s, s/he is an atheist, whether that be agnostic or gnostic.

Therefore, I contend that no one can be SOLELY agnostic, and neither an atheist or theist because they are two descriptors of different concepts. For example, I am agnostic atheist.

Agreed. But I've emboldened the mistake of grammar, in true Nazi fashion.

So then, should it be: Belief and disbelief is a true dichotomy?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 1:30:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/2/2012 1:14:23 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
Actually, agnosticism is the most logical of all religious positions, in my opinion. Who are we to assert that we have 100% proof on what happens after we die? We simply do not know. And to say that we do know does nothing but hinder the possibilities, and brings disgrace to whatever it might be that brought us into existence. It's an arrogant mindset.

True intelligence is to admit that you do not know anything. The more answers you acquire, the more questions there are.

Agnosticism is not a position that is mutually exclusive to theism and atheism; it is a position that is in addition to theism and atheism; it is not the Switzerland of religious philosophy.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 1:40:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think a lot of the issue stems from the colloquial use of "belief" and "know" as opposed the more formal, epistemological uses of the terms. For example, commonly, we use "belief" in contrast to "know" to represent our level of surety.

The problem is, I can be sure of something, but not know it, and I can know something but not be sure. With this in mind, references to whether or not we should be sure of our stance on God has no bearing as to whether or not we should be agnostic regarding our stance on God.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 1:44:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/1/2012 12:35:35 AM, Microsuck wrote:
I'm an agnostic. I neither believe nor disbelieve in a god.

Violates the law of excluded middle.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 2:17:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/2/2012 1:44:34 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/1/2012 12:35:35 AM, Microsuck wrote:
I'm an agnostic. I neither believe nor disbelieve in a god.

Violates the law of excluded middle.

no it doesn't. That law only has to do with statements of truth, not belief.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 2:31:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/2/2012 1:30:13 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/2/2012 1:14:23 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
Actually, agnosticism is the most logical of all religious positions, in my opinion. Who are we to assert that we have 100% proof on what happens after we die? We simply do not know. And to say that we do know does nothing but hinder the possibilities, and brings disgrace to whatever it might be that brought us into existence. It's an arrogant mindset.

True intelligence is to admit that you do not know anything. The more answers you acquire, the more questions there are.

Agnosticism is not a position that is mutually exclusive to theism and atheism; it is a position that is in addition to theism and atheism; it is not the Switzerland of religious philosophy.

Agnosticism can be exclusive from atheism or theism. It is hypocritical to say that someone has to believe something one way or the other when they do not know. Belief stems from knowledge, a least in part.

For example, one could say "I am not sure if there is a higher power or not."
This is different from saying "I do not know whether there is a higher power, but until I see evidence, I believe there is nothing"
Which is different from saying "I believe in a God/Higher power, although am not sure what that is"

The latter two assert a belief. The first does not. Why is it necessary for someone to assert a belief if they do not know either way? It is more honest to admit that you do not know than to say that you know something when you do not. And yes, to have a belief, you have to know that the belief is true for you. So, belief and knowledge go hand in hand.
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 2:39:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/2/2012 2:31:28 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
At 4/2/2012 1:30:13 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/2/2012 1:14:23 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
Actually, agnosticism is the most logical of all religious positions, in my opinion. Who are we to assert that we have 100% proof on what happens after we die? We simply do not know. And to say that we do know does nothing but hinder the possibilities, and brings disgrace to whatever it might be that brought us into existence. It's an arrogant mindset.

True intelligence is to admit that you do not know anything. The more answers you acquire, the more questions there are.

Agnosticism is not a position that is mutually exclusive to theism and atheism; it is a position that is in addition to theism and atheism; it is not the Switzerland of religious philosophy.

Agnosticism can be exclusive from atheism or theism. It is hypocritical to say that someone has to believe something one way or the other when they do not know. Belief stems from knowledge, a least in part.

For example, one could say "I am not sure if there is a higher power or not."
This is different from saying "I do not know whether there is a higher power, but until I see evidence, I believe there is nothing"
Which is different from saying "I believe in a God/Higher power, although am not sure what that is"

The latter two assert a belief. The first does not. Why is it necessary for someone to assert a belief if they do not know either way? It is more honest to admit that you do not know than to say that you know something when you do not. And yes, to have a belief, you have to know that the belief is true for you. So, belief and knowledge go hand in hand.

I think most Theists and Atheists are aware of the possibility that their views are wrong, and I don't know of Any Christian who says he KNOWS God exists. They only believe that he does. I think the distinction for agnosticism is redundant. Just calling yourself an atheist, it's already implied that you don't believe in God, not that you KNOW God does not exist.

I think agnosticism serves nothing more than a bridge for the people who don't want to call themselves religious, but also want to avoid the taboo of a word like "atheist."
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 2:40:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/2/2012 2:17:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/2/2012 1:44:34 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/1/2012 12:35:35 AM, Microsuck wrote:
I'm an agnostic. I neither believe nor disbelieve in a god.

Violates the law of excluded middle.

no it doesn't. That law only has to do with statements of truth, not belief.

Yes, and which statement is true?

A. He does believe in God.
B. He does not believe in God.

One of those has to be true for him.

Just like:

A. He owns a car.
B. He does not own a car.

One of these must be true. There is no middle.

.
.

.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 2:47:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/2/2012 2:40:06 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/2/2012 2:17:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/2/2012 1:44:34 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/1/2012 12:35:35 AM, Microsuck wrote:
I'm an agnostic. I neither believe nor disbelieve in a god.

Violates the law of excluded middle.

no it doesn't. That law only has to do with statements of truth, not belief.

Yes, and which statement is true?

A. He does believe in God.
B. He does not believe in God.

One of those has to be true for him.

Just like:

A. He owns a car.
B. He does not own a car.

One of these must be true. There is no middle.

That has to do with how you dichotomize belief and non-belief. When you define "non-belief" as ACTIVE rejection of something, then there is a middle ground. When you define "non-belief" as lack of belief, then there is no middle ground. This definition of "non-belief" varies from person to person. And so long as someone neither actively rejects a belief nor harbors the belief, he may be considered an agnostic (given the 2nd definition).
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 2:47:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/2/2012 2:47:23 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/2/2012 2:40:06 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/2/2012 2:17:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/2/2012 1:44:34 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/1/2012 12:35:35 AM, Microsuck wrote:
I'm an agnostic. I neither believe nor disbelieve in a god.

Violates the law of excluded middle.

no it doesn't. That law only has to do with statements of truth, not belief.

Yes, and which statement is true?

A. He does believe in God.
B. He does not believe in God.

One of those has to be true for him.

Just like:

A. He owns a car.
B. He does not own a car.

One of these must be true. There is no middle.

That has to do with how you dichotomize belief and non-belief. When you define "non-belief" as ACTIVE rejection of something, then there is a middle ground. When you define "non-belief" as lack of belief, then there is no middle ground. This definition of "non-belief" varies from person to person. And so long as someone neither actively rejects a belief nor harbors the belief, he may be considered an agnostic (given the 1st definition).
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 2:48:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/2/2012 2:40:06 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/2/2012 2:17:43 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/2/2012 1:44:34 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/1/2012 12:35:35 AM, Microsuck wrote:
I'm an agnostic. I neither believe nor disbelieve in a god.

Violates the law of excluded middle.

no it doesn't. That law only has to do with statements of truth, not belief.

Yes, and which statement is true?

A. He does believe in God.
B. He does not believe in God.

One of those has to be true for him.

Just like:

A. He owns a car.
B. He does not own a car.

One of these must be true. There is no middle.






.
.






.
.
.

false. ownership is not the same thing as a belief.

it is more like this:

a. he likes the color black.
b. he dislikes the color black.
c. he is neutral to the color black.

or

a. he witnessed the fight
b. he did not witness the fight
c. he cant remember if he witnessed the fight

or

a. he loves her
b. he doesn't love her
c. he's confused about his feelings for her

it is not necessary for someone to be sure of something. it doesn't even mean they are ignorant or don't care. it just means that they have conflicting ideas and haven't yet made a decision.
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 3:05:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/2/2012 2:48:35 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
At 4/2/2012 2:40:06 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

Yes, and which statement is true?

A. He does believe in God.
B. He does not believe in God.

One of those has to be true for him.

Just like:

A. He owns a car.
B. He does not own a car.

One of these must be true. There is no middle.

false. ownership is not the same thing as a belief.

it is more like this:

a. he likes the color black.
b. he dislikes the color black.
c. he is neutral to the color black.

or

a. he witnessed the fight
b. he did not witness the fight
c. he cant remember if he witnessed the fight

or

a. he loves her
b. he doesn't love her
c. he's confused about his feelings for her

it is not necessary for someone to be sure of something. it doesn't even mean they are ignorant or don't care. it just means that they have conflicting ideas and haven't yet made a decision.

The law of excluded middle is not applicable to human emotions and opinion nor is it meant to. It simply deals with matters of fact. Of course a human being can like, dislike, or be neutral about something. There's also more colors than just green and red, but the law of excluded middle does not apply to arrays. Humans have an array of several options to feel towards something including like, love, dislike, hate, apathy, etc.

Whether God exists or not is a matter of fact, not opinion. He either believes in God or does not believe God exists, whether he actively disbelieves or simply lacks belief, it does not matter.

.
.
.

.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 3:05:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Agnostic = Atheist or Theist without balls (jk lol).

In reality though, deep down you should know whether or not you believe in God or not. You can't know whether he exists or not, but you should at least know whether you believe if he exists or not.

Belief isn't the same thing as knowing, if I say I don't believe in ghosts that doesn't mean that I'm ruling ghosts out or making a knowledge claim about their existence.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 3:07:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/2/2012 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Agnostic = Atheist or Theist without balls (jk lol).

In reality though, deep down you should know whether or not you believe in God or not. You can't know whether he exists or not, but you should at least know whether you believe if he exists or not.

Belief isn't the same thing as knowing, if I say I don't believe in ghosts that doesn't mean that I'm ruling ghosts out or making a knowledge claim about their existence.

exactly
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 3:14:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/2/2012 3:07:26 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 4/2/2012 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Agnostic = Atheist or Theist without balls (jk lol).

In reality though, deep down you should know whether or not you believe in God or not. You can't know whether he exists or not, but you should at least know whether you believe if he exists or not.

Belief isn't the same thing as knowing, if I say I don't believe in ghosts that doesn't mean that I'm ruling ghosts out or making a knowledge claim about their existence.

exactly

Oh snap you're an Atheist now? ...Awesome! lol
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 3:18:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/2/2012 3:05:06 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/2/2012 2:48:35 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:

The law of excluded middle is not applicable to human emotions and opinion nor is it meant to. It simply deals with matters of fact. Of course a human being can like, dislike, or be neutral about something. There's also more colors than just green and red, but the law of excluded middle does not apply to arrays. Humans have an array of several options to feel towards something including like, love, dislike, hate, apathy, etc.

Whether God exists or not is a matter of fact, not opinion. He either believes in God or does not believe God exists, whether he actively disbelieves or simply lacks belief, it does not matter.

God existing or not is a fact. Belief in god is an opinion.
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 3:21:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/2/2012 2:48:35 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
false. ownership is not the same thing as a belief.

it is more like this:

a. he likes the color black.
b. he dislikes the color black.
c. he is neutral to the color black.

or

a. he witnessed the fight
b. he did not witness the fight
c. he cant remember if he witnessed the fight

Irrelevant. Either he witnessed the fight our he didn't. It doesn't matter if he remembers or not.

or

a. he loves her
b. he doesn't love her
c. he's confused about his feelings for her

it is not necessary for someone to be sure of something.

And the law of excluded middle is not dependant on whether a person is sure of something or remembers something. It only cares about the fact of whether its true or false.

Even if you haven't thought about God or are in the middle of deciding, you lack the belief until you make the conscious choice to believe in God (or rather convinced that God exists).

it doesn't even mean they are ignorant or don't care. it just means that they have conflicting ideas and haven't yet made a decision.

Again, this doesn't matter. Either it's true that he witnessed the fight or it is not true that he witnessed the fight. It doesn't matter if he remembers or knows the truth or not.

.
.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 3:25:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/2/2012 2:31:28 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
At 4/2/2012 1:30:13 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 4/2/2012 1:14:23 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
Actually, agnosticism is the most logical of all religious positions, in my opinion. Who are we to assert that we have 100% proof on what happens after we die? We simply do not know. And to say that we do know does nothing but hinder the possibilities, and brings disgrace to whatever it might be that brought us into existence. It's an arrogant mindset.

True intelligence is to admit that you do not know anything. The more answers you acquire, the more questions there are.

Agnosticism is not a position that is mutually exclusive to theism and atheism; it is a position that is in addition to theism and atheism; it is not the Switzerland of religious philosophy.

Agnosticism can be exclusive from atheism or theism.

No, it really can't.

It is hypocritical to say that someone has to believe something one way or the other when they do not know. Belief stems from knowledge, a least in part.

No, that's wrong. Epistemologically speaking, knowledge stems from belief which is why you can believe without knowing. Knowledge is a justified true belief.


For example, one could say "I am not sure if there is a higher power or not."
This is different from saying "I do not know whether there is a higher power, but until I see evidence, I believe there is nothing"
Which is different from saying "I believe in a God/Higher power, although am not sure what that is"

The latter two assert a belief. The first does not. Why is it necessary for someone to assert a belief if they do not know either way?

Ok, so the first doesn't explicitly assert a belief. That only means we lack enough information to determine what their belief (or lack of belief) is or isn't.

It's really very simple. "Do you believe in god?" If the answer is yes, you are a theist. If it is anything else, you are an atheist.

It is more honest to admit that you do not know than to say that you know something when you do not. And yes, to have a belief, you have to know that the belief is true for you. So, belief and knowledge go hand in hand.

That's not what we're talking about when we're talking about knowledge vis-a-vis agnosticism. The knowledge of agnosticism doesn't pertain to what you know about your own beliefs, but what you know (or claim to know) about God.

Atheism and theism address only belief, not knowledge. Agnosticism addresses knowledge. You think knowledge precedes belief but it is actually the other way around. In order to know something is true you must first believe it is true.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 3:28:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/2/2012 3:18:46 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
At 4/2/2012 3:05:06 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/2/2012 2:48:35 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:

The law of excluded middle is not applicable to human emotions and opinion nor is it meant to. It simply deals with matters of fact. Of course a human being can like, dislike, or be neutral about something. There's also more colors than just green and red, but the law of excluded middle does not apply to arrays. Humans have an array of several options to feel towards something including like, love, dislike, hate, apathy, etc.

Whether God exists or not is a matter of fact, not opinion. He either believes in God or does not believe God exists, whether he actively disbelieves or simply lacks belief, it does not matter.

God existing or not is a fact. Belief in god is an opinion.

False. It's not an opinion. What if I said "In my opinion the Earth is flat." No, that's not an opinion, that is belief in a blatant falsehood.

If a person is asked, do you believe in God, they must answer "yes" or "no."

If they say "I don't know if he exists because evidence hasn't demonstrated his existence" that means "no." If they say "I'm still deciding" that means "no." If youre still deciding, you don't believe in God. If you do believe in God, then you have decided.

.
.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 3:30:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/2/2012 3:21:06 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/2/2012 2:48:35 PM, Lickdafoot wrote:
false. ownership is not the same thing as a belief.

it is more like this:

a. he likes the color black.
b. he dislikes the color black.
c. he is neutral to the color black.

or

a. he witnessed the fight
b. he did not witness the fight
c. he cant remember if he witnessed the fight

Irrelevant. Either he witnessed the fight our he didn't. It doesn't matter if he remembers or not.


or

a. he loves her
b. he doesn't love her
c. he's confused about his feelings for her

it is not necessary for someone to be sure of something.

And the law of excluded middle is not dependant on whether a person is sure of something or remembers something. It only cares about the fact of whether its true or false.

Even if you haven't thought about God or are in the middle of deciding, you lack the belief until you make the conscious choice to believe in God (or rather convinced that God exists).

it doesn't even mean they are ignorant or don't care. it just means that they have conflicting ideas and haven't yet made a decision.

Again, this doesn't matter. Either it's true that he witnessed the fight or it is not true that he witnessed the fight. It doesn't matter if he remembers or knows the truth or not.

With that logic, all religious beliefs are irrelevant. God either exists or he doesn't and it doesn't matter if you believe in him or not.

It is possible for someone to say "i don't think it is possible for humans to determine where we came from or where we are going. We simply do not have enough knowledge to begin to understand. It is likely something that we cannot understand."

Why should that person be forced to fall into the category of "god" or "no god"

Their beliefs are not cohesive with either one.
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...
Lickdafoot
Posts: 5,599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/2/2012 3:34:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Do you love her? Yes.
Do you love her? No.
Do you lover her? I don't know. I have conflicting feelings.

You all are saying that the second two answers are the same thing when they are not.
WAKE UP AND READ THIS: http://www.debate.org...