Many agnostics seem to be mislead about agnosticism and belief in God. - Page 5

Gettin' In Tune · 09-09-2007, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Prove to me why it is wrong for me to believe that the Earth is spherical and not flat.

Quote:

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.

I would suggest that you learn more about atheism. Atheism is not an ideology. It is a refutation of theism. Atheism would not exist if theism did not exist. Theism rest on irrational and nonsensical claims. Why do you "half-way" support theism?

Quote:

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.

I love it when people get desperate in a debate that they resort to personal attacks. Please tell me how I am an idiot when I say that I lack a belief in Thor, Morrigan, Zeus, A Christian god, Allah, Ahayuta-achi, Ra, Ah Bolon Dzacab, Amaterasu, and the other countless personal gods.

It is becoming quite obviously that you do not lack a belief in a personal and theological god. On what grounds do you support your belief?

Quote:

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.

You boldly claimed that atheism is dogmatic and based on weak evidence. Back up you claim or stop babbling complete nonsense. I ask again, where is the strong evidence to refute atheism?

SirArthur · 09-09-2007, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gettin' In Tune

Prove to me why it is wrong for me to believe that the Earth is spherical and not flat.

Earth has physical existence.

Quote:

I would suggest that you learn more about atheism. Atheism is not an ideology. It is a refutation of theism. Atheism would not exist if theism did not exist. Theism rest on irrational and nonsensical claims. Why do you "half-way" support theism?

If you refute, by rational or irrational ways, the existence of something over which is impossible to determinate anything (existence or non existence) you can only do it dogmatically and under circumstances as valid as the ones that point otherwise.

Quote:

I love it when people get desperate in a debate that they resort to personal attacks. Please tell me how I am an idiot when I say that I lack a belief in Thor, Morrigan, Zeus, A Christian god, Allah, Ahayuta-achi, Ra, Ah Bolon Dzacab, Amaterasu, and the other countless personal gods.

It's NOT a personal attack, is a statement to say that nothing is absolute over ideologies as it happens on physical world and as so it's not possible to establish an analogy on such. I DID NOT say you DO agree 100% with any ideology or person, did I? And can you do agree 100% with someone?!
Why you made it a personal attack?!

Quote:

You boldly claimed that atheism is dogmatic and based on weak evidence. Back up you claim or stop babbling complete nonsense. I ask again, where is the strong evidence to refute atheism?

On the same place where's evidence to refute Theism: NOWHERE.

Gettin' In Tune · 09-09-2007, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirArthur

On the same place where's evidence to refute Theism: NOWHERE.

Theism — The belief that gods or deities exist and interact with the universe.

The main subcategories of theism are:

*polytheism — The belief in and worship of multiple gods or deities.
*monotheism — The belief in and worship of a single god.

Some theistic religions are: Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Bahá'í Faith, Sikhism and Islam.

Do you insist that I refute theism and the revealed religions that they are based on?

pseudonous · 09-09-2007, 05:46 PM

Quote:

"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.

Just FYI, This is a reply to Vinterland's definitions, i.e. Agnosticism is just a statement about knowledge and has nothing to do with belief. Bringing in qualifications about the belief (dogmatic, undogmatic, etc..) as you have done is not consistent with Vinterland's argument.

SirArthur · 09-09-2007, 05:49 PM

?!?!?!?! What?!

Now you got me lost! So many posts supporting Atheism near fundamentalism level now you do not refute Theism?!
Sorry, Agnosticism-theistic and Agnosticism-atheistic is possible, however Atheism-Theistic or Theism-Atheistic is not.

Gettin' In Tune · 09-09-2007, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirArthur

?!?!?!?! What?! Now you got me lost! So many posts supporting Atheism near fundamentalism level now you do not refute Theism?!

What are you saying?

Quote:

Sorry, Agnosticism-theistic and Agnosticism-atheistic is possible, however Atheism-Theistic or Theism-Atheistic is not.

There is no such thing as an agnostic-theist. How can you believe and have faith in something that you do not have knowledge of? Can you define agnostic-theism?

SirArthur · 09-09-2007, 06:05 PM

An agnostic can be Agnostic-theist or Agnostic-atheist according to the tendency of his beliefs. An Agnostic-theist tend to believe there's a God or other deities, thus those are unreachable on understanding by us. An Agnostic-Atheist simply tend to believe there're no God or deities.

Both are valid and both groups are certain that it's impossible to tell who is right on his beliefs and who is not.

Gettin' In Tune · 09-09-2007, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirArthur

An agnostic can be Agnostic-theist or Agnostic-atheist according to the tendency of his beliefs. An Agnostic-theist tend to believe there's a God or other deities, thus those are unreachable on understanding by us. An Agnostic-Atheist simply tend to believe there're no God or deities.

Your definition of agnostic theist is on shaky ground. Why is god unreachable and beyond our understanding? What leads someone to this conclusion?

Quote:

Both are valid and both groups are certain that it's impossible to tell who is right on his beliefs and who is not.

An agnostic-theist is not valid. They are independent concepts. Agnosticism deals with knowledge and theism is a belief. What sort of knowledge does one need in order to become an agnostic-theist? What sort of god do they believe in? Is this a personal god? What are the attributes associated with an agnostic-theist god?

If god is beyond our understanding, then what sort of understanding leads to knowing that god is beyond our understanding? How do we know something that is unknowable?

**Skepticologist** · 09-09-2007, 06:42 PM

You folks are making this much more complicated than it needs to be.

Quite simply, as an agnostic, based on my current knowledge, there can be no proof or disproof of the existence of god, e.g., supreme being, unmoved mover.

If, tomorrow morning, I'm presented with complelling evidence that there either is, or is not, such a supreme being, then I will "convert" from agnosticism to either theism or atheism, as the case may be.

In the meantime, and in the absence of such compelling evidence, I will continue to maintain that I simply don't know whether there is a god, because I simply have insufficient information on which to base a decision either way.

And because I have insufficient information, I do not believe in god, nor do I disbelieve in god.

SirArthur · 09-09-2007, 06:49 PM

Gettin' In Tune:

What a senseless load of rhetorical stuff.

You go nowhere with rhetorics with me. Like we say around here on popular expressions "Tu vens de carrinho enquanto eu já volto de camião" (You're coming on a small car while I'm already returning on a truck).

By the way, the use of rhetorics is connoted with religion and law. Are you a lawyer?

Now rest a bit.