First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next  Last
No to the Illogical Agnostic.
17888 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 7/28/10 , edited 7/28/10
Absence of evidence, is evidence of absence. "Its just not proof of absence."

To validate this position I give it 3 analogy/examples! :

1. There is a absence of evidence that Adolf Hitler was best friends with a Italian by the name Gladamor Jilleon. So we must assume that the absence of this evidence shows that most likely not the case. This is what reason dictates, and it is unreasonable to claim any possibility of this man being Adolf's friend without any form a valid objective evidence backing it up.

2. There is an absence of evidence that the moon is made out of cheese, So any claim that the moon is must be denounces as uneducated speculation and nothing more. But their is evidence that the moon is made of stone and other minerals do to verifiable objective evidence brought back from the moon. Reason and logic dictate that we should believe in the moons makeup being of stone rather than cheese.

3. There is a absence of evidence that there is a Giant 300 foot tall monster that roams the ocean and at times attacks Tokyo. Yes their is no evidence of Godzilla other than stories about him created by people. (in other words their is no valid objective evidence of such claims.) Hence why it is illogical to claim he is real without a bases using objective evidence and reasoning first. But their is evidence that Giant reptiles did roam earth many many millions of years ago and so it is acceptable to accept claims of large reptiles at one time did roam earth.



It is unreasonable to accept anything on outlandish unprovable claims alone.
Without a bases for such claims of any kind it is illogical to accept it even as a possibility.


5231 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 7/28/10
So is this supposed to be discrediting agnosticism or supporting it? The title suggests the former but the OP seems to support the latter.
17888 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 7/28/10

Cuddlebuns wrote:

So is this supposed to be discrediting agnosticism or supporting it? The title suggests the former but the OP seems to support the latter.



Discrediting.Agnosticism. For it is illogical to accept anything as a possibility without some form of support/objective backing for it.
Posted 7/28/10
Agnosticism never really worked for me. Either you believe in something or you don't.
1187 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Look.... im right...
Offline
Posted 7/28/10 , edited 7/28/10
You fail to recognize that a possible evidence that agnostics use to argue the existence of a God is the universe itself. And when i say God it doesnt necessarily mean a personal God, it could mean a force which created the universe or even the almighty flying spaghetti monster or even the universe creating itself. Does that mean agnostics should call themselves deist or pantheist then? Well no, because they dont know for a fact how the universe came into existence or if it was even created in the first place.

Now for you understand the position of agnostics regarding this matter you have to accept that an evidence of a god is the universe itself, even as a hypothetical.
3068 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
73 / M
Offline
Posted 7/28/10 , edited 7/28/10
Darkphoenix... you really need to drop with all these useless debate topics around systems of belief.
At the end of a day where you debated in this forum, ask yourself "What did I accomplish?"

Your contribution to mankind is on par with the religious people whom you despise so much.
Posted 7/29/10

vinsane01 wrote:

You fail to recognize that a possible evidence that agnostics use to argue the existence of a God is the universe itself. And when i say God it doesnt necessarily mean a personal God, it could mean a force which created the universe or even the almighty flying spaghetti monster or even the universe creating itself. Does that mean agnostics should call themselves deist or pantheist then? Well no, because they dont know for a fact how the universe came into existence or if it was even created in the first place.

Now for you understand the position of agnostics regarding this matter you have to accept that an evidence of a god is the universe itself, even as a hypothetical.
In epistemology, that's a logical fallacy known as a "non sequitur", aka an oxymoron. Thereby an agnostic view cannot be a fact, when it's really an unreasonable belief, aka blind faith all the same.
17888 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 7/29/10 , edited 7/29/10

makix wrote:

Darkphoenix... you really need to drop with all these useless debate topics around systems of belief.
At the end of a day where you debated in this forum, ask yourself "What did I accomplish?"

Your contribution to mankind is on par with the religious people whom you despise so much.


(role my eyes)

An that is your opinion.
See me you do not agree on one thing it seems.

That is what we call rocking the boat. Because if we do not rock the boat and let it be known we are still here an willing to fight the good fight, there going to bend us over and Fu&^ us up the Arss. Like what the religious group has been doing for the past 3000 years or so.

I can debate all day about power sources as well and what does that accomplish? Just as much as me debating ideologies. NO less than, because at least with a Ideology debate their is a chance of getting people to see things more logically, even as small as it is worth the debate.

this is a forum for debating topic till we tern blue in the face. I for one love challenging people to the debate. IT GETS ME OFF!
It does not matter if I am going to change anyone's mind or not, because I really do not give a flying FU*& what others think. I am here to debate ideals that I find interesting. If you are not stimulated by MY THREADS, its just as easy for you to stay clear of the thread.
(stupid remarks about how I am not changing anything is not needed. It only makes you look like a fool for spamming in my threads. But I thank you for the bump non-the-less.)





DomFortress wrote:


vinsane01 wrote:

You fail to recognize that a possible evidence that agnostics use to argue the existence of a God is the universe itself. And when i say God it doesnt necessarily mean a personal God, it could mean a force which created the universe or even the almighty flying spaghetti monster or even the universe creating itself. Does that mean agnostics should call themselves deist or pantheist then? Well no, because they dont know for a fact how the universe came into existence or if it was even created in the first place.

Now for you understand the position of agnostics regarding this matter you have to accept that an evidence of a god is the universe itself, even as a hypothetical.
In epistemology, that's a logical fallacy known as a "non sequitur.", aka an oxymoron. Thereby an agnostic view cannot be a fact, when it's really an unreasonable belief, aka blind faith all the same.


Seems you beat me to the punch.
Yes like I was explaining, the agnostic idealism is a non-sequitur or logical fallacy based on irrational faith/fear based ideology.
3068 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
73 / M
Offline
Posted 7/29/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


makix wrote:

Darkphoenix... you really need to drop with all these useless debate topics around systems of belief.
At the end of a day where you debated in this forum, ask yourself "What did I accomplish?"

Your contribution to mankind is on par with the religious people whom you despise so much.


(role my eyes)

An that is your opinion.
See me you do not agree on one thing it seems.

That is what we call rocking the boat. Because if we do not rock the boat and let it be known we are still here an willing to fight the good fight, there going to bend us over and Fu&^ us up the Arss. Like what the religious group has been doing for the past 3000 years or so.

I can debate all day about power sources as well and what does that accomplish? Just as much as me debating ideologies. NO less than, because at least with a Ideology debate their is a chance of getting people to see things more logically, even as small as it is worth the debate.

Arguing about religion/Systems of Beliefs in a forum dedicated around Anime and Asian Dramas is really making a difference buddy.

17888 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 7/29/10

makix wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


makix wrote:

Darkphoenix... you really need to drop with all these useless debate topics around systems of belief.
At the end of a day where you debated in this forum, ask yourself "What did I accomplish?"

Your contribution to mankind is on par with the religious people whom you despise so much.


(role my eyes)

An that is your opinion.
See me you do not agree on one thing it seems.

That is what we call rocking the boat. Because if we do not rock the boat and let it be known we are still here an willing to fight the good fight, there going to bend us over and Fu&^ us up the Arss. Like what the religious group has been doing for the past 3000 years or so.

I can debate all day about power sources as well and what does that accomplish? Just as much as me debating ideologies. NO less than, because at least with a Ideology debate their is a chance of getting people to see things more logically, even as small as it is worth the debate.

Arguing about religion/Systems of Beliefs in a forum dedicated around Anime and Asian Dramas is really making a difference buddy.



One Agnosticism is not a religion. Its a lack of a stance, a irrational ideal based on fear of making a choice.

Your being illogical, and making it into a religion not me.

On top of that your remarks are obvious attempts to down play the thread, because you have nothing to rebuttal the claims being made.
Hence you fail at the debate game, and so you use a false claim to try to save face, or just to make you your self feel better.

Am I wrong?! I do not see people agreeing with you so again thanks for the bump. But your down playing of the thread using false claims is a fail sir.
Posted 7/29/10
I just say I don't know and move on with my life.
Posted 7/30/10

JJT2 wrote:



No, we can only debate about stuff if the Mods find the topic ok. If they find a topic offensive to them, they will take it off even if it follows every rule in the rule book. They killed my baby...they killed my baby...peace over war
With "your" attitude, "your" baby of a statement was a stillborn due to "your" lack of understanding on the topic of agnosticism. When "you're" notoriously known for not having a sense of "yourself".
17888 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 7/30/10 , edited 7/30/10

JJT2 wrote:



No, we can only debate about stuff if the Mods find the topic ok. If they find a topic offensive to them, they will take it off even if it follows every rule in the rule book. They killed my baby...they killed my baby...peace over war


Did you not try getting it reinstated?
They can not remove something without it failing some type of rule.
Even if the mod her self... thinks its sick and degrading, if it does not brake the rules they can not touch it. An if they do you can get it over turn or even have that mod looked into and maby even lose her position as a mod. Go over her head.

Yeah yeah, it might have been a he.. But I felt like calling the mod a she today.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.