SirArthur

I do not disagree nor take such as an insult. After all religions call apostate to everyone who doesn't blindly follow their commandments and their dogmatic BS, as so "apostate" means you're not "sheep" he can dispose.

Let they prove they're right first, until then let they call us whatever they want. We stand superior to that.

SirArthur

And why not?

Prove your point first. I don't know if you realize that already, but against an agnostic, is you who must prove or try to prove something, not me.

From where I stand there's about as much evidence to support Theism as there're for support Atheism: None presented so far.

Gettin' In Tune

Just because you don't understand something does mean you should conveniently place god into unknown knowledge. That is not rational or sensible

No, it is you that is making the positive claim. Atheism is not a positive claim. If someone believes in Santa Clause, then it is NOT up to non-believers to prove that they are wrong.

Support your claim. If you are claiming that you believe in god or that you are holding open the possibility for god, then provide your evidence. I am an atheist to theological gods since their is no evidence to support them.

You made a claim that atheism is based on insubstantial evidence. Where is the substantial evidence that leads to your positive claim that atheism is dogmatic? Again, I ask you to describe this insubstantial evidence or provide counter substantial evidence, but you keep evading. You also claim that you tend to believe in god. Which god? What are god's attributes? Is this a personal god? Where is the solid evidence for your belief?

You obviously are making a claim on atheism based on knowledge. Please back up your claim or retract it.

Which form of theism? Where is this evidence that you speak of. PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE that supports theism and atheism and stop evading.

__________________
"But to find the truth we need imagination and skepticism both. We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact."--C.Sagan

SirArthur

This is senseless...

How can you request an Agnostic to prove and advocate for or against God?! Either you do not understand what Agnostic means or you must be confused over something.

My explanation why I tend to believe there's a God has been made 4 or 5 posts above. Further than that I've nothing to add.

If you are in conditions to prove your Atheism, go for it, until then your belief is just as Dogmatic as any religious claiming to be a God.

And stop the rhetorical a bit. It's leading you nowhere, you can't attack Agnostics by replying with questions or request them to prove whatsoever. Agnostics stand between theists and atheists, in a parallel on a court house who stands on the middle is the judge; you do not request the judge to prove anything, do you? Both parts, in this analogy theists and atheists, are the ones who must advocate for their part.

Gettin' In Tune

Do you believe in the god, Thor? Am I dogmatic for saying that I lack a belief in Thor based on no evidence of Thor?

I am not attacking agnostics. I am asking you to support you claim that atheism is based on weak evidence. Your statement that I am dogmatic is drivel unless you can support it. I have been extremely patient with you and asked you multiple times to support your claim. It is you that is being dogmatic. STOP EVADING AND SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM.

Agnostic is not the middle ground between atheism and theism. You cannot half believe in god just like a woman cannot become half pregnant.

I do not have to advocate for something that there is no evidence for. Do you understand this? Show me the evidence for god or tell me why it is a good reason for me to believe in god.

Again, what type of god?

__________________
"But to find the truth we need imagination and skepticism both. We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact."--C.Sagan

SirArthur

Beliefs are not physical subjects. Yes, a woman can't be half pregnant, on the other hand you can't be full on to a single ideology or belief.
While she can't be nothing but full pregnant you also can't be nothing but bunch of ideologies percentages. And as so within the ideologies of Theism and Atheism there's a middle ground.

Turns out that when somebody tells me he agrees or disagrees 100% with some ideology or person, I would think such person is nothing but an idiot who delegated his own thinking to such person or ideology.

Your rhetorical will have no effect, you can keep asking me about God, but from my middle ground nothing do I have to reply to you on such.

Vinterland

Of course I can calculate to some extent the odds of my car being stolen and no, God cannot be measured in any sense, but that's not my point. It's about the assumptions we all make, often to make us feel better - how stupid and angry will you feel when you finally realise that saying "it won't happen to me" didn't stop you from getting in a car crash? I don't know about you, but I acknowledge that over 6 million auto accidents happen in the U.S. alone every year, but I choose to believe that it won't happen to me for my own comfort.


I have not stated "God does not exist." I am not a strong theist, nor strong atheist. It is you who has stated a Christian and Muslim gods don't exist. The onus is on you to prove the negative.

I aforementioned the term fideism, the notion that believing in God is impossible by the use of reason, and can only be believed by faith. Some definitions of fideism will also state that faith itself is baseless, and "believing for the sake of believing" sums it up nicely, but again, I ask, where in the modern definition of agnostic, does it state an agnostic must be a default atheist in their beliefs?

I still disagree that an agnostic is exclusively an atheist by belief, but perhaps this will be resolved with GIT.

I have not completely grasped what you've said- how are all theists and atheists agnostics by how I've defined belief and knowledge?

I do think agnosticism can be applied to virtually any belief in its broadest useage of the definition and I don't discern any contradictions or absurdities.

Thanks for the info on gnosis, but again, I don't understand what you're saying the last two statements.

GettinInTune:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence which is why it is irrational to deny a personal god and/or impersonal God.

I agree that as an agnostic-theist, you do have the middle ground here against someone who has an opinion he/she believes is an absolute, but I must state that agnosticism is only a middle ground between strongly held convictions and not belief in general.

__________________
And on we walked. Suddenly we heard a voice crying, "This is the sea. This is the deep sea. This is the vast and mighty sea." And when we reached the voice it was a man whose back was turned to the sea, and at his ear he held a shell, listening to its murmur.
And my soul said, "Let us pass on. He is the realist, who turns his back on the whole he cannot grasp, and busies himself with a fragment."
—Gibran Khalil Gibran, “The Greater Sea.”

pseudonous

If your belief or lack of belief in god is indeed a belief, it is not verifiable. This is by your definition; A belief is not verifiable. If it is not verifiable then it can not be considered knowledge. Again, this is by your definition; Knowledge is verifiable. Therefore, they are all agnostic believers and agnostic nonbelievers.

No one has knowledge about a belief. Therefore everyone is agnostic with respect to their belief. This is the absurdity. It is redundant.

SirArthur

"No one has knowledge about a belief. Therefore everyone is agnostic with respect to their belief."

Not quite, since those who have no knowledge on their belief but accept it dogmatically are not Agnostics, it's more "how sure you are" than "how much you know" that counts. The term stands without any redundancy.

Even on science, and science is meant to be knowledge there're theories accepted on a dogmatic way.

Gettin' In Tune

The onus is not on me. If someone makes the claim that a christian and muslim god exist, then the onus falls on them. I ask for proof of a christian and muslim god. These god concepts are based on ancient texts and hearsay. Again, I ask for evidence that these gods exists. The absence of evidence of a theological god does not shift the burden of proof onto me. Why do you insist that the onus is on me?

http://www.agnosticforums.com/philos...html#post17110

I ask again, how do I rationally disprove a god concept that conveniently suspends logic and reason?

I am not sure where you are going with this. Are you claiming that believing in the tooth fairy for the sake of believing is a good thing? Agnosticism is a stance on knowledge. How can you have faith in something that you do not have knowledge of?

One must observe god and define god. Many agnostics cannot do this. If you do not believe in a god that you cannot observe or defined, then you are atheist. You lack a belief. If an agnostic does not assert that god exists, then they are atheist.

Many agnostics reject the label of atheist because of the prejudice against atheists and atheism. To appear as agnostic is much more respectable than appearing as atheist. Those that are confused or unsure of themselves like to use this word for precisely that reason.

I am an strong atheist with respect to a personal and theological god. I become agnostic concerning how the physical laws were established, where matter came from, and various (pan, panen) deist conceptions of god. Also, I am very hesitant to fill this gap of knowledge with a god concept.


This make no sense. As much as I dislike equating god to Santa Claus, Pegasuses, and the flying spaghetti monster it serves a purpose here. I am curious how you call me irrational when I boldly claim that I have a lack of belief in Santa Claus, Pegasuses, and the flying spaghetti monster. One must define an impersonal god. I simply do not know if the universe is a closed-system. Again, I become agnostic concerning how the physical laws were established, where matter came from, and various (pan, panen) deist conceptions of god.

__________________
"But to find the truth we need imagination and skepticism both. We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact."--C.Sagan