Most agnostics don't see it as 50/50. I'm agnostic, simply because I don't claim God does not exist. I claim God probably doesn't exist. This is all it takes to be agnostic. Being atheist is just as illogical as being theist. They think they 'know' something. By "consequence" as CA puts it, CA is more likely right in his beliefs than Whatsupyall, lol. But the point is, is that they don't KNOW, they only think they know. When you admit you don't know for certain, you become agnostic.
Consistent or Delimited Agnosticism
- Thread starter ConsequentAtheist
- Start date
I don't think that some people comprehend the Ultra-extreme improbability of temselves even existing atall. Yet we do exist.
Now try to comprehend the Ultra-extreme improbability that the world should be the way it is.
The probabilities are almost irrelavant to any arguement in any direction if you think about it in this way.
Now try to comprehend the Ultra-extreme improbability that the world should be the way it is.
The probabilities are almost irrelavant to any arguement in any direction if you think about it in this way.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Don't be silly. What is illogical about not believing in God(s)?
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Not in my opinion.
You are a weak atheist.
Nope. 'For certain' has nothing to do with it. It is a common misinterpretation of agnosticism. If you think god probably does not exist, you have a belief he does not. You are atheist. An agnostic could not claim any sort of probability one way or the other.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
What utter nonsense! Having yet to confirm the presence of microfossils on Mars, would you consider it "scientifically logical" (whatever that might mean) to deny such a possibility?
There IS personality buried in there somewhere.
And if the question is meaningless probability is pointless, thusly my "argumentum ad ignorantiam"?
I think I see your point and it's quite good of course. You mean that since there is no way to apply logic to the hypothetical unicorn farts event, it just gets discarded as an invalid target for logical analysis? Is that correct?
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Actually, I would argue that logical possibility is insufficient warrant for belief. To the best of my knowledge, there is absolutely nothing logically impossible about unicorns.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
I believe what I said was: "I can think of extremely few phrases that I hold in greater contempt. It is the universal prelude to an argument from ignorance." I honestly do not recall criticizing you for employing such a fallacy.
What you said was:
"At the same time, while I am more that pleased to leave you in the good graces of Lewis Carroll, you might wish to consider whether or not your 'agnosticism' is simple a place-holder for some future argumentum ad ignorantiam."
I thought you were implying that my end of the current debate was as my future argumentum ad ignorantiam would be. I see that was presumptuous on my part. Pardon.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Quite the contrary. I find your communication to be entirely clear. I simply do not know how to continue a rational discussion with someone who accepts the possibility of square circles.
Actually, maybe I shouldn't. I do however mostly as a statement as to my position regarding my agnosticism. I'll list a few reasons why I think this is reasonable, though illogical. Please, it would do me a great service if you could point out specific reasons why I shouldn't. If there is no, "why I shouldn't" then if you could provide "why you think I shouldn't" I would genuinley appreciate it. Here they are:
1) Someone could redefine things: circle is a square is a circle. I might not know they did it, so they'll be right when they insist that "that circle is square" but we're not speaking the same language. This I tried to infer before but I presumed you deemd it illogical and disregarded it.
2) Someone could have a problem with their perception such that they cannot percieve the difference between a square and a circle.
3) Maybe a blind person "sees" geometry in a way that I cannot fathom.
4) Maybe you see geometry in a way that I cannot fathom.
5) Maybe it's that I've never really understood what a circle IS, but I've always THOUGHT that I have.
5.5) Maybe pink elephants are unicorn haters (just wanted to squeeze that in somewhere.
6) Maybe a set could be devised such that this seeming paradox is allowable.
7) I've always wondered if parodox is perfectly logical, it's just uncomfortable. For instance if logic leads you to paradox, is that paradox not perfectly logical? Is that the point at which reason and logic separate?
I'll stop. I think they are all similar in that "I do not know my knowledge of the square and circle to be complete, therefore I cannot say with absolute certainty that one is not the other, except in my interpretation thereof". I believe that is the best that I've been able to summarized my agnosticism to date.
I hate to seem like a grovelling student, but I'm most curious as to your response. Again I do appreciate your time and consideration.
Last edited:
Maybe it is as simple as this for me "I must put my own knowledge and beliefs, etc. under the same scrutiny that I put the world I think I'm in." I suppose my prior post and entire structure of reasoning is based on this. Have I erred in application of this premise?