If you aren't agnostic, you suck. :)

[wesmorris]

You know why science geeks, athiests and agnostics refuse to succumb to the statement "God did it."?

It is very simple. If you answer "God did it." you are a huge wuss. It's a simple, silly answer. Maybe it's true, maybe it isn't, but to a reasonable being all possibilities must be exhausted before accepting something so uh... well, seems stupid to me. Seems like you don't have the intellect, will or creativity to consider other possibilities. That doesn't make you a bad person, it just makes you a little pathetic from the perspective of a person who is compelled to seek objective truth.

I mean really, if you are interested in seeking objective truth, isn't it inherent that you HAVE to maintain agnosticism? Refute that? Everything else is just justifying your assumptions.

Comments?

 

[Empty Dragon]

Agnostic is the natural state of human existance.

 

[Zero]

Agnosticism is but one of the many viewpoints one could have. That particular point of view isn't any more significant that a particular frame of reference in relativity. It's stupid to consider any such one to be superior or more natural.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by Zero
Agnosticism is but one of the many viewpoints one could have. That particular point of view isn't any more significant that a particular frame of reference in relativity. It's stupid to consider any such one to be superior or more natural.

I beg to differ. It's certainly not stupid, it's probing. I contend that there exists objective truth like that which follows: You have to be agnostic if you truly seek this objective truth. In fact, this is the only position which would allow one to truly explore all possibilities. Again, everything else is just justifying your assumptions. Can you do better than a blanket write off like "that's stupid"? I only ask such that I might be enlighted.

You see, I think this to be an enlightened perspective. If it really isn't I'd sure like to know that, but I'm going to scrutinize all input of course because it's so easy to be jacked around on these types of topics. So, I'm willing to listen, but "that's stupid" doesn't really persuade me.

 

[Zero]

You're basically claiming that the agnostic point of view is the only valid one when seeking truth. I don't see how you can defend that.

Why not have people of all viewpoints come together and discuss things? There are strengths and weaknesses of each. :m:

 

[Empty Dragon]

You're basically claiming that the agnostic point of view is the only valid one when seeking truth. I don't see how you can defend that.

I would think it would have nothing too do with validity, but more so function. To my knowledge of agnosticsm, you are not comitted to any beliefs or idea. All can change as it is required. How else could you see the truth. If you are bound to a certain style of perception you will never relize truth. An atheist may claim that they know there is no god. If there midn becomes attached to that idea they they will advance know further. If you claim with out a doubt there is a god. The same applies. I am having dificulty wording this right but I hope I am relaying my message correctly.

Why not have people of all viewpoints come together and discuss things? There are strengths and weaknesses of each.

Being Agnostic allows you to use all points of view. An agnostic mind is like water it forms to any percetion. It is versitile and formless. Like I said earlier it is the natural state of the human mind. It is not a view point it is a way of being.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by Zero
You're basically claiming that the agnostic point of view is the only valid one when seeking truth.

No, not truth... objective truth. Big difference.

Originally posted by Zero
I don't see how you can defend that.
[/B]

It's relatively easy. If you start with ZERO assumptions and ask "Does god exist?" You then start down a path creating theories to prove or disprove that idea to yourself. If you accept any evidence that is not undoubtable you have violated reason, for the following is reasonable "Astounding claims require astounding evidence". Further, in order to satisfy the assertion "God DOES exist." one must either produce undoubtable evidence or, just concede that the evidence presented is compelling enough to satisfy that statement for you. In that case, you subjectively satisfying the requirement for truth, which is fine as long as you concede that objective truth is NOT your goal.

Originally posted by Zero
Why not have people of all viewpoints come together and discuss things? There are strengths and weaknesses of each. :m:

[/B]

That is exactly what we are doing. I'm just arguing that when strictly applying reason to the question of "does god exist", there is only one possible conclusion - agnosticism in the only defendable belief because it is non-commital. It's a trick, but it's true.

Further, I would say that even those people who claim to be athiests or theists are also agnostic, the just deny it. The have almost exclusively stopped explicitely asking the question and begun ignoring the topic or justifying their conclusion to theirselves. That is the problem with their positions, a truly earnest mind cannot let go the question without irrifutable evidence. That given, the human mind provides the evidence through a series of unreasonable assumptions. Actually, aithiesm is more reasonable and I can't tell at the moment if the last bit there applies to them too. I'll have to think it through.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by Empty Dragon
Being Agnostic allows you to use all points of view. An agnostic mind is like water it forms to any percetion. It is versitile and formless. Like I said earlier it is the natural state of the human mind. It is not a view point it is a way of being.

DAMN!!!!!!!! Drop some science there Empty Dragon! You go boy! Booyah for real!

 

[Phaedrus]

I beg to differ. It's certainly not stupid, it's probing. I contend that there exists objective truth like that which follows: You have to be agnostic if you truly seek this objective truth. Again, everything else is just justifying your assumptions.

You have to be agnostic if you truly seek objective truth? Why would agnosticism have any special type of "road" to the "objective truth" you so claim. Why would atheists or theists not have this path. I would say that a theist would have more backup for "objective truth" than a agnostic or a atheist.

In fact, this is the only position which would allow one to truly explore all possibilities.

That is just asinine. If you claim that agnosticism is the only way to go, and then say that it "explores all possibilites" you are contradicting yourself. Besides that, any atheist could study religion, look at me. I am agnostic now but when I was atheist I was conducting religious studies. Not to learn about god, but to learn about the history of religions and theology.

Can you do better than a blanket write off like "that's stupid"? I only ask such that I might be enlighted.

Sure, I will be glad to defend the atheists on this forum (not that they need it since they outnumber me) Let me make an analogy to see if your idea that agnosticism is the best.

One day I heard that George Bush Jr. claim that he built a time machine. About 30 minutes later when I was watching TV with two of my friends George came on the TV. He started talking about this time machine of his. Started to say that he went and talked to Socrates and Aristotle and received the education that he has been needing. However he still did not seem very bright and made more grammatical mistakes than a five year old. When the press asked to see this time machine, he said, "no no, I will not show it to anyone, but I promise it exists." Then a press agent asked him to use the time machine to save lives, George responded "No, I will use it however I see fit, you will never know my plans." Then another asked "Why don`t you show the schematics of the machine to scientists?" George responded that he did not want other countries somehow getting it. He kept repeated that the time machine exists, and the only evidence he offered was he word. My friend to the left who we will call Bob said that he does not think the time machine exists. My friend on the right said that he thinks it does, why else would the President make such a claim. I decided to say that "I have no idea whether it exists." Now, my friend to the left (Bob) would have a right to say that it does not exist, for George has no filled the burden of proof. My friend on the right claims that George saved his life by using the time machine once. Bob and I thought about this and decided that a person's story, while possibly moving cannot count as proof in itself. So I decided not to commit to either side and Bob stayed on his.

This is why Bob's position is valid:
1) George has not fufilled the burden of proof
2) Bob has seen no real evidence other than the claim
3) Righty's story could be possible, but it could also be a dream, an episode of a mental illness, or possibly delusion

I will now ask you a question. I will make the claim that I saw John F. Kennedy the other day. I will go further and say that JFK is involved in a upcoming revolution to take over the current Presidency.

Would you say that the best possible position to take would be similar to the agnostic? So, I do not know if John F. Kennedy exists. An agnostic could not say that "It is doubtful that he exists," that is a type of atheist position (there are a few).

Here are the responses changed for the analogy:
Atheist: "I do not think that JFK is alive or planning that."
Agnostic: "I do not know, and you cannot know currently"
Theist: "Yeah buddy, I saw him too!"

Now the atheist or agnostic positions are not invalid. Until the burden of proof is fufulled, then one can make a negative claim validly. One can also be noncommital.

Being Agnostic allows you to use all points of view. An agnostic mind is like water it forms to any percetion. It is versitile and formless. Like I said earlier it is the natural state of the
human mind. It is not a view point it is a way of being.

Hrm....this sounds like a number of koans I have read. Agnosticism however is probably not the natural state of the human mind. I have never read or seen any reports to even coming close to this claim. why not cite me a scholarly journal, or heck even a book (a researched and scholarly one). For me it is not a way of being in the sense of my agnosticism effects my daily life. My rationality and skepticism are what is my "being" if you are referring to what is the "top dog." Pass the logic and reason test and you pass. Agnosticism does not have to change your moral standard from your community, your social interaction (I went to church and temple for a number of years when I was agnostic to learn), or your common held beliefs. So it does not seem that being agnostic is your "being," unless your agnosticism is very meaningful to you. But this is not true with many agnostics. Most are not worried about religion or skepticism for that matter, they can be just as gullible as a theist.

Further, I would say that even those people who claim to be athiests or theists are also agnostic, the just deny it. The have almost exclusively stopped explicitely asking the question and begun ignoring the topic or justifying their conclusion to theirselves. That is the problem with their positions, a truly earnest mind cannot let go the question without irrifutable evidence. That given, the human mind provides the evidence through a series of unreasonable assumptions.

The earnest mind cannot let go of the question without irrifutable evidence....I would not agree with that. As in our other debate I have shown you that there are not many things you can give a complete proof to. Your foot was the example I gave, now, are you an agnostic when it comes to the existence of your foot? Do you study the very idea of "foot" and the reasons for and against its existence? Well by your logic if you don`t then you are not a truly earnest mind. However I would never want to be this earnest mind.

Actually, aithiesm is more reasonable and I can't tell at the moment if the last bit there applies to them too. I'll have to think it through.

you also said earlier when talking about agnosticism

You see, I think this to be an enlightened perspective.

Well, I would like to know which one you think. Because I am somewhat confused. If atheist is more reasonable then it would be that you should be an atheist. I would be an atheist if I thought it more reasonable. I however do not think it is more reasonable, even though I think it is more likely (different than reasonable)

Further, I would say that even those people who claim to be athiests or theists are also agnostic, they just deny it. The have almost exclusively stopped explicitely asking the question and begun ignoring the topic or justifying their conclusion to theirselves. That is the problem with their positions.

I have marked the important parts of this paragraph. Now, how would you even make this a logical proof? That people who are atheists and theists are also agnostic? Hrm, you could never prove this. You cannot look in everyones mind and see this. If you talk about being reasonable, this statement is nowhere close to it..

Just putting in my ideas as always.

- Phaedrus

 

[Asguard]

um i dont get it

agnostics belive in something bigger than us but not in organised religion

why do i need a church to belive in god?

 

[adj]

well . . . . objective truth is worth seeking and can be found from any person's current "status"; hindering it are simply imagination and prior beliefs -- iinstead of looking at the basic simple truth of something, we try to mold it to our predetermined point of view.

This makes it very difficult (impossible?) for typical man. Look a small things first -- the leap from water is wet (to whom? a fish?) to does God exists, without a basic objective reasoing building blocks firmly establised is, well . . . nothing more than a leap of faith

 

[wesmorris]

You know Phaedrus, there simply has to be some sort of major communication problem between the two of use because I'd swear you did nothing but strengethen my argument.

It's freaking me out a little. I'm not really sure if I should bother typing anything as it seems that there is something fundamentally wrong with the way you interpret what I type, or I'm terribly inept at writing what I mean.

As I understand your definitions from our other converstation, you would lable me an "ultraconservative realist" whom you probably suspect is a crackhead or trajically under-educated in logic. *shrug* As I've attempted to communicate to you before, I am utterly agnostic. As you've stated there are previously stated, there are problems with being that way, as we've discussed - it's hard to prove my foot. This is where you seem to be stuck. I know that dude. I GET IT. You don't have to keep repeating that. Where is appears to me that you don't get it is: I make the assumption that my foot is real. I make a few other assumptions before that, which are equally ambiguously defined. I do this because it seems silly to me not to. I have FAITH that it is a good assumption. This doesn't apply to the argument at hand though.

Originally posted by Phaedrus
You have to be agnostic if you truly seek objective truth? Why would agnosticism have any special type of "road" to the "objective truth" you so claim. Why would atheists or theists not have this path.

It's not a special road. As a matter of fact it, it's the un-road. It's just saying (when applied to the question "does god exist?"): "I do not have sufficient evidence to commit to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god". The burdon of proof (to the agnostic) cannot be satisfied, as in your example below. Further, what I was saying about athiests is "athiesm is more reasonable than theism" almost entirely because of the issue of burdon of proof.

Originally posted by Phaedrus
I would say that a theist would have more backup for "objective truth" than a agnostic or a atheist.

Why would you say that? What do you mean "backup" dude.. that really doesn't make sense to me. A theist can only have "objective truth" if the burdon of proof is satisfied, which to them it has, but that is only a subjective interpretation of the objective world. Therefore, unless proof is given to the theist and he compells me of its truth, truth only exists as a probability, hence agnosticism. More subtle is the fact that I can only say that it is indeed objective truth as an act of faith, regardless of the topic because it requires assumptions.

Originally posted by Phaedrus

That is just asinine.

that's not nice.

Originally posted by Phaedrus

If you claim that agnosticism is the only way to go, and then say that it "explores all possibilites" you are contradicting yourself. Besides that, any atheist could study religion, look at me. I am agnostic now but when I was atheist I was conducting religious studies. Not to learn about god, but to learn about the history of religions and theology.

I don't see what studying religion while being athiest has to do with this at all. I'd first of all say that you really were just calling yourself an athiest and were really agnostic, regardless of what you were studying. Further, I'm not saying you have a choice unless there is actually something wrong with your brain. That's the depth of statement I'm trying to get at. It is utterly true regardless of argument by the definitions. I'm saying that when you were an agnostic you were wrong because you committed to an unconfirmable assertion. You owe yourself the burdon of truth as I owe you the burdon of proof for making this claim. (I know it isn't working, but that's what I'm attempting to do.)

Labels can be wrong. Sometimes even the labels you give yourself. For instance, to me, you figured out "oh, I was wrong, I meant 'I'm agnostic, not aithiest'". The only way to say that you weren't wrong before is to abandon reason for emotion. That is perfectly valid as a choice but horribly stupid by reasoning.

Maybe this: My definitions lead me to conclude the following: Theists are 100% convinced there is a god. Athiests are 0% convinced there is a god. Agnostic covers everything in between.

I know you've argued that some theists don't claim to be 100% sure of the existence of god, but the way I interpret what "theist" means, that just means they are agnostic but want to label themselves as something else in order to well, whatever it is that motivates them to do that, but they are wrong.

I will not argue these definitions with you for the following reasons: It is perfectly reasonable to make assumptions for the purposes of an argument.
It is perfectly reasonable to reach those conclusions given the definitions of the words (objectively (to the other words)) and my experience having used them throughout my life.

Originally posted by Phaedrus


This is why Bob's position is valid:
1) George has not fufilled the burden of proof
2) Bob has seen no real evidence other than the claim
3) Righty's story could be possible, but it could also be a dream, an episode of a mental illness, or possibly delusion

I will now ask you a question. I will make the claim that I saw John F. Kennedy the other day. I will go further and say that JFK is involved in a upcoming revolution to take over the current Presidency.

Would you say that the best possible position to take would be similar to the agnostic? So, I do not know if John F. Kennedy exists. An agnostic could not say that "It is doubtful that he exists," that is a type of atheist position (there are a few).

Here are the responses changed for the analogy:
Atheist: "I do not think that JFK is alive or planning that."
Agnostic: "I do not know, and you cannot know currently"
Theist: "Yeah buddy, I saw him too!"

Now the atheist or agnostic positions are not invalid. Until the burden of proof is fufulled, then one can make a negative claim validly.

I know what you mean, but I'm asserting that to be incorrect. I think the negative claim is invalid is it asserts to "know" you used your language loosly. in your athiest reply you say "think" and then "know in the agnostic" to me, "think" means "mostly convinced" and know means "I'm positive it's true". not using them correctly to me. I think the athiest says "JFK is NOT alive and planning that" and the agnostic says "I do not have enough evidence to make a 100% conclusion".

One can also be noncommital.

In my opinion, the athiest has committed, while the agnostic hasn't. That's why the agnostic is right and the athiest wrong. The aithiest has committed without the burdon of proof being satisfied. In my opinion, commital either way is equally incorrect, but the athiest is more logical.

Hrm....this sounds like a number of koans I have read. Agnosticism however is probably not the natural state of the human mind. I have never read or seen any reports to even coming close to this claim. why not cite me a scholarly journal, or heck even a book (a researched and scholarly one). For me it is not a way of being in the sense of my agnosticism effects my daily life.

It probably does effect your daily life because it affects your perspective, which affects how you interpret your daily life, it's likely pretty subtle, but there nonetheless.

My rationality and skepticism are what is my "being" if you are referring to what is the "top dog." Pass the logic and reason test and you pass. Agnosticism does not have to change your moral standard from your community, your social interaction (I went to church and temple for a number of years when I was agnostic to learn), or your common held beliefs. So it does not seem that being agnostic is your "being," unless your agnosticism is very meaningful to you. But this is not true with many agnostics. Most are not worried about religion or skepticism for that matter, they can be just as gullible as a theist.

I don't know that many agnostics so, uh.. okay could be. Actually those that I do know are quite skeptical in nature though, so eh. I doubt you.

The earnest mind cannot let go of the question without irrifutable evidence....I would not agree with that. As in our other debate I have shown you that there are not many things you can give a complete proof to. Your foot was the example I gave, now, are you an agnostic when it comes to the existence of your foot? Do you study the very idea of "foot" and the reasons for and against its existence? Well by your logic if you don`t then you are not a truly earnest mind. However I would never want to be this earnest mind.



you also said earlier when talking about agnosticism

You read me wrong... I was comparing athiesm to theism when I said it was more reasonable.. I wasn't clear I guess.. thought implied... you must really think I'm an idiot to not give me the benefit of the doubt there. Thanks.

Originally posted by Phaedrus


Well, I would like to know which one you think. Because I am somewhat confused. If atheist is more reasonable then it would be that you should be an atheist.

I was consistent, you inferred incorrectly, I wasn't clear enough.

Originally posted by Phaedrus

I would be an atheist if I thought it more reasonable. I however do not think it is more reasonable, even though I think it is more likely (different than reasonable)

Okay.

Originally posted by Phaedrus

I have marked the important parts of this paragraph. Now, how would you even make this a logical proof?

I was indulging in conjecture. I've got reasoning for it, but it's very difficult to explain. I'll concede your point. It would be damn near impossible, unless I could get you to undertake some assumptions. For instance: Assume it's true. Kidding. We would have to have a converstation on thought structure and well, it's not the issue. I'll be glad to present you with theories though sometime, I've come up with an interesting perspective on the issue.

Originally posted by Phaedrus

That people who are atheists and theists are also agnostic? Hrm, you could never prove this. You cannot look in everyones mind and see this.

How do you know? Maybe I understand something you don't. Maybe I don't have to "look into their minds to do it" maybe, just maybe, consciousness has some rules. Not the brain, consciousness. I would have to prove it to you, but that's a whole other issue. It's possible. You should be agnositic about it right? Maybe you think I'm stupid and have therefore made the assumption that I'm not correct, how is this possible with no evidence? I'm only partially serious, mostly I'm trying to use the same reasoning you applied in your example.

Originally posted by Phaedrus

If you talk about being reasonable, this statement is nowhere close to it..

How can you say that without more evidence? You are not being reasonable. You are correct it would be a tough logical proof if you start with zero assumptions. I'd say however that it is impossible to make any valid statement without starting with some assumption. I believe "I exist" would have to preclude most plausible proofs. If not that explicitely, you would have to assume there exists an objective physical world to be able to have this conversation with me, right? I would say that before one may even utilize logic you have to assume that it exists right? How can you use it if it doesn't exist?

Eh. I'm done for now. I'm sure I'll have to try more later.

Just putting in my ideas as always.

- Phaedrus

understood

 

[Raithere]

westmorris:

I think you're on the wrong track here. There is a difference between being agnostic and retaining a wary skepticism and an appreciation of the unknown. I think you are confusing the two. You need to respect the various shadings between the theistic categorizations. There are theistic and atheistic stances that are not absolute declarations of opinion as fact but are hypothetical positions. The weak positions of both the theistic and atheistic argument both allow for skepticism and fallibility. There are also strong positions that allow for more general or stricter (theistic and atheistic respectively) definitions of God thereby falling well within a logical framework.

~Raithere

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Raithere said it all quite nicely and better than I ever could, but I just want to confuse things by adding that personally I do not see the point in leaving the option open that there is a supernatural power in the world at the moment, since there is no indication that there is one, or ever has been a supernatural power to this world.

Once there is some kind of indication that there might be a supernatural power i might start considering it.

It is nice to leave options open, but as it is, the world does not require any agnostic approach to understand it in a meaningful manner.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by Raithere
westmorris:

I think you're on the wrong track here. There is a difference between being agnostic and retaining a wary skepticism and an appreciation of the unknown. I think you are confusing the two.

I think both require agnosticism if the point is objective truth. There is no reason one can't entertain a myriad of interesting possibilitie.

Originally posted by Raithere
You need to respect the various shadings between the theistic categorizations.
[/B]

I probably should, but I don't really. I can't stand theism and I see it to be the most presumptuous assertion possible. As a matter of fact, the idea sickens me to an extent, not that god might exist, but that a human would assert to know beyond a shadow of a doubt. THAT in my opinion is the starting point for frightening thoughts and behavior.

Originally posted by Raithere
There are theistic and atheistic stances that are not absolute declarations of opinion as fact but are hypothetical positions.
[/B]

That's not what I'm debating. I specified that somewhere in all that crap I wrote last night. Hypothetical positions, in the argument I'm posing, are agnostic in nature. For the sake of my argument I hold the following: Athiests: There IS no GOD or god. Theists: THERE IS A GOD DUMBASS! Agnostics: Not enough info for an accurate decision. I choose this because these are the only ways to define them such that they are unique things. If you say "weak theist" you have destroyed the capacity to reasonable argue against that position. For the purposes of what I'm attempting to assert, I say you've mislabeled "weak theist" or "weak athiest". They are actually agnostics.

Originally posted by Raithere
The weak positions of both the theistic and atheistic argument both allow for skepticism and fallibility. There are also strong positions that allow for more general or stricter (theistic and atheistic respectively) definitions of God thereby falling well within a logical framework.
[/B]

Understood, but well, see above and on the god thing: For the purposes of the argument, I'm talking about god as a conscious being who created the universe. I choose that for to me it seems to be the common definition. Again, if you choose other definitions of god, you are really not only changing the common definition but you are changing the framework of the reasoning set up here. In that case, you are still agnostic by my definitions above.

Given all that crap, am I still on the wrong path? Are you seeing what I'm driving at? I'm a little thick-headed sometimes, but I'm no idiot and I believe if you let it soak in over a long period of time there is great merit to what I'm saying. It took me years to see all this. Mostly to realize the semantics games that one is tempted with as a philosopher. It's easy to get lost in redefining things. Things like "weak theist". I've realized the only way to advance the argument is to hold to strict definitions, thusly "weak theist" is an oxymoron.

I will admit however, I could be completely full of shit. I'm just exploring (and apparently exposing my ass in the process). Please, step away from the ass sir.

 

[Phaedrus]

This is going to be a long response people, so bear with me. Of course, only because there are a lot of errors to correct ;-). I believe the problem that exists between us is that you are not clearly defining your terms, you are also trying to apply logic which is not exactly working. I do not mean this in an insulting way, but your reasoning is usually flawed.

I know what you mean, but I'm asserting that to be incorrect. I think the negative claim is invalid is it asserts to "know" you used your language loosly. in your athiest reply you say "think" and then "know in the agnostic" to me, "think" means "mostly convinced" and know means "I'm positive it's true". not using them correctly to me. I think the athiest says "JFK is NOT alive and planning that" and the agnostic says "I do not have enough evidence to make a 100% conclusion".

Well, an atheist does not have to say that "he knows." He can still be an atheist if he doubts. If he says, "I doubt that god exists." Or he says, "I do not think god exists, but that is because ample proof does not exist to prove his very existence." These people are still atheist. I will define agnostic using m-w.com

Agnostic
1. person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable

or it can be defined broadly:
one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

Atheist: a person who denied or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings

So, an atheist can say, "I do not believe that a god exists." And as I have shown in our last argument, to believe does not mean that you have to perceive as a fact. So, your argument that an atheist always says that "god does not exist" does not hold up in all circumstances, therefore it is invalid.

In fact, this is the only position which would allow one to truly explore all possibilities.

Why can`t an athiest explore the possibilities. I know a number of atheists (including most of this board) that argues quite a bit about the existence of god. Do you think that if "god" came down from the heavens that most of them would say, "Hey, you don`t exist buddy....I know this for a fact." They might think they are delusional, but if God came down and visited everyone on earth then most people would probably become theists. The atheists here argue about evidence, so it would follow that if shown enough evidence they would become a theist. But, that would be a lot of evidence. The stronger the claim the stronger the evidence must be.

I mean really, if you are interested in seeking objective truth, isn't it inherent that you HAVE to maintain agnosticism?

Objective is defined as: 1 a : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence -- used chiefly in medieval philosophy b : of, relating to, or being an object , phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind

This one is going to hurt (so I apologize in advance). So you say that if you are seeking objective truth...agnosticism is the way to go. What says there is such a thing as objective truth. "There are no facts, only interpretations." -Friedrich Nietzsche. If you were truly searching for what you call the truth, you would question this "objective truth" itself. If you believe that truth exists outside of our existence, you better start another thread because that would be a hell of a thread. Also, if an agnostic is really what you say he is, why would he even think "objective truth" exists. Why not look for the negative side of objective truth. Why could it not be subjective truth? That is the side of the argument I am on, and I am agnostic. So it seems that your argument is again invalid because it does not fit all of the anomalies.

It probably does effect your daily life because it affects your perspective, which affects how you interpret your daily life, it's likely pretty subtle, but there nonetheless.

If it is subtle then it is not my "being" or my natural state. To give an example, man has a sex drive in order to further reproduction within the species. Because of this I have a sex drive, which is part of my "natural state." While it is true that some people lack this drive, I do not. It is not "subtle" and no natural state that I know of is. Again, major claims = major evidence, so provide it. If it is my natural state then argue that, I would never say that it does not affect my life, I said that it is not my natural state. The claim was made that it is your "being," not that it only affected you.

I would say that a theist would have more backup for "objective truth" than a agnostic or a atheist. I made this because objective truth means truth exists outside of the mind. A theist can base his objective truth on a omnipotent god. Sure, it is doubtful that the being exists, but the point here is the claim for objective truth not the existence of god. Would murder be wrong in the yardstick of objective truth?

More subtle is the fact that I can only say that it is indeed objective truth as an act of faith, regardless of the topic because it requires assumptions.

Well, objective truth does not need assumptions, it is objective. So if you claim it exists then you are contradicting yourself. Objective truth exists outside of the mind. To believe it you might need assumptions, but obective truth itself is not an act of faith. The belief in these objective truths might be, but again, not objective truth itself. If you did not mean this then be much more careful in your writings.

I don't see what studying religion while being athiest has to do with this at all. I'd first of all say that you really were just calling yourself an athiest and were really agnostic, regardless of what you were studying. Further, I'm not saying you have a choice unless there is actually something wrong with your brain. That's the depth of statement I'm trying to get at. It is utterly true regardless of argument by the definitions. I'm saying that when you were an agnostic you were wrong because you committed to an unconfirmable assertion.

Please tell me how I was agnostic when I was an atheist. I thought during this time that "It is doubtful that god exists," which by the definitions I have given is atheistic. An agnostic is right on the line, no more left than right, if you are then you are not agnostic.

You are not saying I have a choice unless there is something wrong with my brain? Uhhh...please explain this statement. Are you claiming that agnosticism is in our genetic makeup?

instance, to me, you figured out "oh, I was wrong, I meant 'I'm agnostic, not aithiest'". The only way to say that you weren't wrong before is to abandon reason for emotion. That is perfectly valid as a choice but horribly stupid by reasoning.

Hahaha. Hrm...was I wrong. Actually to have wrong then I would have to know if god exists or not. If he does, then I was wrong, if he does not exist, then I was not wrong. So, I did not abandon reason and I still do not know if my previous choice was wrong. And yes, I was atheist, I did not label myself incorrectly.

Maybe this: My definitions lead me to conclude the following: Theists are 100% convinced there is a god. Athiests are 0% convinced there is a god. Agnostic covers everything in between.

As I have shown with my earlier definitions, this is not true. Atheist and theist can have doubts, and do not have to make the claim that they are "sure" of their evidence.

I know you've argued that some theists don't claim to be 100% sure of the existence of god, but the way I interpret what "theist" means, that just means they are agnostic but want to label themselves as something else in order to well, whatever it is that motivates them to do that, but they are wrong.

Wrong again, I will repeat the definition of agnostic: person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god. So, as I have shown before you can believe, but still not be sure. For example, "I believe I corrected all the spelling errors on my page." This statement does not mean, "For a fact I have corrected every single possible spelling error on my page." It has doubts in it. So again your argument does not stand up when you look at the definition.

Now let us define theist: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of man and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

So again it is "belief." And since the word belief can be used as I have shown above your argument does not work in all cases. Therefore your argument is invalid.

belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of man and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

Well, I will use you as an example and I am not personally attacking you, I am just trying to illustrate a point. You are claiming that being agnostic means that you are also skeptical. Now, you admit that you have not studied logic. So, if you claim that it follows that agnostics are the ones who can look for objective truth, and you also make the claim that they are skeptical, how can you not know logic? What you are saying is that you are skeptical, but not reasonable. A person who questions, but cannot reason with the ideas. So what you have done is put yourself in a paradox. You can have your skepticism, but you cannot have your logic. So, you can be a skeptic, but nothing more. You are saying that all you can do is ask questions but never answer them. In fact, if you do not study logic, you probably cannot do a very good job asking these so called questions. Again, you need to be more specific with your language next time to avoid things like this.

you must really think I'm an idiot to not give me the benefit of the doubt there.

I do not think you are an idiot, so feel better when I say there are only two or three people on this board who will I give the benefit of the doubt. James R, Cris and Paradox are the only ones who I will do this for, and that is because I know Paradox personally, and I have to suck up to the moderators. ;-)

I would have to prove it to you, but that's a whole other issue. It's possible. You should be agnositic about it right? Maybe you think I'm stupid and have therefore made the assumption that I'm not correct, how is this possible with no evidence? I'm only partially serious, mostly I'm trying to use the same reasoning you applied in your example.

No, I do not have to be agnostic about it. I agnosticism is my view on god, not my approach to life. Skepticism and logic is my approach, and all you did was make a general claim which you cannot prove. This is a very strong claim in which you have shown absolutely no real evidence for.

How can you say that without more evidence? You are not being reasonable.

I said this statement is not reasonable. The statement is not reasonable because you did not use reason, or logic. You gave no reasons to show why this is true. You have not used any form of reasoning, therefore it is unreasonable.

If not that explicitely, you would have to assume there exists an objective physical world to be able to have this conversation with me, right? I would say that before one may even utilize logic you have to assume that it exists right? How can you use it if it doesn't exist?

No, I do not have to think that some type of objective world exists. I talk to people in my dreams, even when I realize I am dreaming. I also interact within my dreams. I realize these are dreams. Dreams are not "objective reality." So, I would not have to assume it exists to have this conversation with you. I am not talking to you for your own sake, I am doing this to have fun. I do not need some objective reality to have fun.

For the purposes of what I'm attempting to assert, I say you've mislabeled "weak theist" or "weak athiest". They are actually agnostics.

Again, as I have shown above this point is invalid because of the definitions you seem to be using.

Given all that crap, am I still on the wrong path?

Yea, still wrong. ;-) Hope to see a response soon.

- Phaedrus as always

 

[pumpkinsaren'torange]

you know why science geeks, athiests and agnostics refuse to succumb to the statement "God did it."?

aw, quit generalizing, you snorker, you....NOT all "science geeks" refuse to "succumb", as you so succinctly ( ) put it...

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by pumpkinsaren'torange
aw, quit generalizing, you snorker

Never been called a snorker before I don't think. Not sure what it means but hey, I like it!

Originally posted by pumpkinsaren'torange

, you....NOT all "science geeks"

Hehe, you're entitled to criticize, as I'm entitled to make half assed stupid statements. I didn't say ALL and didn't intend to imply it, thanks for thinking I'm stupid though! Sorry if you felt lumped in.

Originally posted by pumpkinsaren'torange

refuse to "succumb", as you so succinctly ( ) put it...

And yes, "succumb" for I think it very compelling to make an unreasonable assumption because it's easier than arguing about it, there are all kinds of social benefits.. bla bla blah. So "succumb" is aboot right to me.

 

[wesmorris]

Phaedrus. I think I see where we're departing. It's in our definitions. I understand you what you're saying, and with your interpretations of the definitions, I yield to your argument. That is what I've been attempting to relay to you. The problem I have with your debate though, is that you cannot stretch the definitions for the sake of contemplating an alternative perspective. I will give you the reasons why I find it important to define the three terms as I do. Maybe it's pretty simple.

Oh wait, first I have to take offense at you telling me my reasoning is flawed without ever really having contemplated it. You are a very bright person and should be able to bend your brain around what it is that underlies my argument. You might see it if you wouldn't read things like "here is what I mean when I say this" and then tell me, NO, you're wrong for saying that. That does not compute to me. All definitions are interpreted subjectively and I don't believe it to be intellectually fair to ignore it when your debate opponent stipulates it early in the argument (as I've now done multiple times).

Okay, back to why:

If I take the "weak theist" position. What does that really mean? I am of the understanding that "I 'believe' in god but would not assert it to be fact". Is that not the same thing as "I think the probability of the existence of god or GOD is very high, but I'm not wholly convinced. Regardless since I 'believe' in god, I am a theist." Maybe that's not exactly the definition but it has to be along the right line of thinking???? I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong. Now, in that statement I belive two words are key: believe and god. I'll say this again: I'm talking about GOD or god or gawd. Doesn't matter. Might as well be believing George in your example before. That word you can do whatever with as far as I'm concerned because BELIEVE is the word that I'm concerned with. There are two major uses for the word believe. one is "i know it to be fact" and the other, in question here is "is right as far as I can tell" or "is probably correct, enough for me anyway" while not asserting that their conclusion might not be wrong. In other words, the term "believe" admits the possibility of being incorrect but probably not.

Probably. hmm. probably. This hmm.. sounds suspiciously undecided. Almost as if... well. Agnostic. So I say that a weak thiest is really agnostic.

I'll stop there so maybe we can keep our posts a little shorter. I feel like I'm trying to write a term paper every time I post. YIKES. I do get a little lost in it sometimes because it's big... so I'll shorten it up. You go now. You're the next contestant on "why does wesley's reasoning suck!?!?!?!". LOL

 

[pumpkinsaren'torange]

Wes

well, i don't doubt that you have never encountered the word "snorker" before...you see, i made it up. i made it up when i was a little girl...it's my own word. it really isn't as bad a word as it sounds, either. i can try to define it...it's like a cross between being silly and nonsensical, preposterous and outrageous.. eh..i guess if you looked up the word in the dictionary you would find a picture of Chroot revealed there. hee heeeeeeeeee. don't worry, i don't get offended, i merely speak my mind. bye bye..