First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next  Last
No to the Illogical Agnostic.
4582 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / ireland
Offline
Posted 9/26/10
I can't make up my mind so until then I shall remain an agnostic,maybe on day I could have an epiphany moment.
55199 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
52 / F / Atlanta GA
Offline
Posted 9/26/10 , edited 9/26/10
There come a point in many people's lives when they do chose. Anyway you can't win them with logic or some holy book. All you can do is show the facts and in there on time let them decide. many Jewish people lost faith in god after WW2. The more people kill in the name of religion more will come to your way of thinking. Presenting a rational argument after the dissuasion of faith will car more weight. It something I mention some time ago you do not have kill a the Muslims just kill there faith. Why do they fear other religions so much it pure and simple It crap what they belief are into. Religion become there own enemies from within and outside pressure.--------------------------------------- The only violent one out there is Islam in recent history. They keep move into areas then demand Sharia Law many people see through this game and if they do not get there way they act out. There plenty of other countries with high tech weapons and they will step on the wrong toe, it just a matter of time. People will sooner or later realize faith dose not stop an enemy from killing them. One thing, Mohamed recognized this fact and created the jihad in order too save his trash as a last ditch effort, a suicide attack. Like the Kamikaze for japan.
17892 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 11/25/10

miserykitsune wrote:

I can't make up my mind so until then I shall remain an agnostic,maybe on day I could have an epiphany moment.


The Neutral stance is atheism..

Agnosticism is not a stance.. Its a tactic.. used to avoid stepping on toes.

3324 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Trudging on throu...
Offline
Posted 12/18/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

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.



I think it depends on the situation. Here you gave 3 scenarios that support (not validate) your position. But what if I gave you a situation where absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence?

Here is a context where evidence ex silentio is not justifiable:

John: Do you know your wife's e-mail password?
Jack: Yes, I do as a matter of fact.
John: What is it?
Jack: Hey, that's none of your business.

Going with your position, one should assume that Jack doesn't know since he is remaining silent (evidence of absence). However in this context it may be considered unreasonable, since a password is a security feature not intended to be shared with a stranger simply because they asked. It may be reasonable, by contrast, to assume that Jack does indeed know the password but refuses to say it for legitimate security concerns.

Your ex silentio arguments may be inductively strong (according to the context) but they will always deductively invalid.
17892 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Small Wooded town...
Offline
Posted 12/20/10

qweruiop wrote:


Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

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.



I think it depends on the situation. Here you gave 3 scenarios that support (not validate) your position. But what if I gave you a situation where absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence?

Here is a context where evidence ex silentio is not justifiable:

John: Do you know your wife's e-mail password?
Jack: Yes, I do as a matter of fact.
John: What is it?
Jack: Hey, that's none of your business.

Going with your position, one should assume that Jack doesn't know since he is remaining silent (evidence of absence). However in this context it may be considered unreasonable, since a password is a security feature not intended to be shared with a stranger simply because they asked. It may be reasonable, by contrast, to assume that Jack does indeed know the password but refuses to say it for legitimate security concerns.

Your ex silentio arguments may be inductively strong (according to the context) but they will always deductively invalid.



It is not irrational to believe that he does not know the password. Do to Jack with-holding the information. But we can still verify if he really does know the password.. By asking his wife directly if Jack knows it or not. Hence a rational outlook that shows that he does.. Yet till she admits he knows the password.. One must logical assume he may not know it.. You forgot the age old rule that seeking verifiable evidence to back/justify ones ideals or opinions is key to thinking rationally and logically.

4897 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / South Africa - Ca...
Offline
Posted 12/20/10
i have to disagree with you. it's illogical to state with certainty that god doesn't exist using the premise that there is no evidence he exists. you can't "logically" use lack of evidence as proof that something doesn't work or does not exist. the only way you can logically disprove something is with evidence that refutes said claim.

for example - there is no evidence that proves the existence of sentient life anywhere in space other then on earth. we have only managed to prove that there are planets that can support sentient life. to claim we are the only sentient beings in the entire universe is laughable and currently disprovable. it's illogical to say there is or isn't. the only thing we can say is that both are possible.

the same goes for agnostics. all they are saying is that until there is evidence to prove OR disprove god, the possibility remains for either. therefor the most logical standpoint is in fact, agnosticism.

4897 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / South Africa - Ca...
Offline
Posted 12/20/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


miserykitsune wrote:

I can't make up my mind so until then I shall remain an agnostic,maybe on day I could have an epiphany moment.


The Neutral stance is atheism..

Agnosticism is not a stance.. Its a tactic.. used to avoid stepping on toes.



and just on a side note. taking a stance like atheism, is in no way neutral. if you bring neutrality in to it then there must be a left side and a right side. two extremes. assuming "believing in god" is the extreme right, then the extreme left is "not believing in god" leaving neutral at "god may or may not exist"

atheism does not take a neutral stand.
Posted 12/20/10 , edited 12/20/10

ABalloon wrote:

i have to disagree with you. it's illogical to state with certainty that god doesn't exist using the premise that there is no evidence he exists. you can't "logically" use lack of evidence as proof that something doesn't work or does not exist. the only way you can logically disprove something is with evidence that refutes said claim.

for example - there is no evidence that proves the existence of sentient life anywhere in space other then on earth. we have only managed to prove that there are planets that can support sentient life. to claim we are the only sentient beings in the entire universe is laughable and currently disprovable. it's illogical to say there is or isn't. the only thing we can say is that both are possible.

the same goes for agnostics. all they are saying is that until there is evidence to prove OR disprove god, the possibility remains for either. therefor the most logical standpoint is in fact, agnosticism.
Well I say the weakest and most cowardly stance is agnosticism, when it simply cannot argue the existence of God because it doesn't critically analyze the evidences nor reasoning of theism. In other words, agnostics are simply afraid to be wrong about God, so they made a political compromise instead of a logical stance in the first place.

As for myself, this is my stance.
4897 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / South Africa - Ca...
Offline
Posted 12/20/10 , edited 12/20/10


it's not cowardly. it's realistic. i am not agnostic cause i fear the wrath of god when i die. neither do i fear the lack of an afterlife or spiritual nothingness. if i die and there is nothing, i dont care. so be it. i choose to be agnostic because to me, it makes the most sense. if god does exist there isn't a single person out there that can say how he judges a soul and what he would or would not punish. i might get punished for being agnostic just as easily as i might be punished for being an atheist. maybe he is an incredibly logical being and he would punish people of faith due to the fact that it was irrational.

so no, i don't think its a cowards stand point. if anything it takes heat from both atheism and religion. one could just as easily say its cowardly to take a side.
Posted 12/20/10

ABalloon wrote:



it's not cowardly. it's realistic. i am not agnostic cause i fear the wrath of god when i die. neither do i fear the lack of an afterlife or spiritual nothingness. if i die and there is nothing, i dont care. so be it. i choose to be agnostic because to me, it makes the most sense. if god does exist there isn't a single person out there that can say how he judges a soul and what he would or would not punish. i might get punished for being agnostic just as easily as i might be punished for being an atheist. maybe he is an incredibly logical being and he would punish people of faith due to the fact that it was irrational.

so no, i don't think its a cowards stand point. if anything it takes heat from both atheism and religion. one could just as easily say its cowardly to take a side.
One fact about categorical reasoning is that it's based on objective reality. So the moment that you hypothesized about something that you didn't care about, you contradicted your disposition as an agnostic by yourself becoming a theist: you made bogus claims about something that you knew nothing about.

And how can you prove that taking a side is cowardice? What's your categorical reasoning behind that unrealistic generalization? Before I'll toss your argument aside as straw man logical fallacy using bogus claims.
4897 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / South Africa - Ca...
Offline
Posted 12/20/10

DomFortress wrote:


ABalloon wrote:



it's not cowardly. it's realistic. i am not agnostic cause i fear the wrath of god when i die. neither do i fear the lack of an afterlife or spiritual nothingness. if i die and there is nothing, i dont care. so be it. i choose to be agnostic because to me, it makes the most sense. if god does exist there isn't a single person out there that can say how he judges a soul and what he would or would not punish. i might get punished for being agnostic just as easily as i might be punished for being an atheist. maybe he is an incredibly logical being and he would punish people of faith due to the fact that it was irrational.

so no, i don't think its a cowards stand point. if anything it takes heat from both atheism and religion. one could just as easily say its cowardly to take a side.
One fact about categorical reasoning is that it's based on objective reality. So the moment that you hypothesized about something that you didn't care about, you contradicted your disposition as an agnostic by yourself becoming a theist: you made bogus claims about something that you knew nothing about.

And how can you prove that taking a side is cowardice? What's your categorical reasoning behind that unrealistic generalization? Before I'll toss your argument aside as straw man logical fallacy using bogus claims.


that was all hypothetical. the only claim i made there, was that i didn't mind what outcome there was after death. be it that god did or did not exist. i gave hypothetical examples to show you that my decision to be agnostic wasn't based in cowardice. it was based on logical reasoning. the only argument i put forward earlier is that lack of evidence is not the same as evidence that contradicts. so saying agnosticism is false on the premise of lack of evidence is in itself, illogical.

fair enough that i didn't put forward an argument for taking a side as cowardice. i merely meant that placing your faith in a religion is a "safe" net. people who fear that god exists and the repercussions behind not believing in god take a cowards stand point by blindly believing without evidence.

similarly people who refute the existence of god without evidence to disprove his existence (still not the same as lack of evidence) are just as equally using faith to justify their own beliefs. there's no logical argument that can be used to say it's anything but faith. the closest you can get is "it's more likely that god doesn't exist then that he does" using the lack of evidence argument. a statistical bet. perhaps not in itself cowardly though. so i shall accept that my previous comment wasn't fully true.

lastly, please don't make this about me, but rather about what the subject is. dismissing everything i say based off one line is rather weak counter argument if you ask me.
3324 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Trudging on throu...
Offline
Posted 12/20/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:


It is not irrational to believe that he does not know the password. Do to Jack with-holding the information. But we can still verify if he really does know the password.. By asking his wife directly if Jack knows it or not. Hence a rational outlook that shows that he does.. Yet till she admits he knows the password.. One must logical assume he may not know it.. You forgot the age old rule that seeking verifiable evidence to back/justify ones ideals or opinions is key to thinking rationally and logically.



Would you still be assuming that he doesn't know the password if it were yours?

My point is that as long as there is even a single instance in which that your conclusion is wrong, then it is an invalid argument.
Posted 12/20/10 , edited 12/20/10

ABalloon wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


ABalloon wrote:



it's not cowardly. it's realistic. i am not agnostic cause i fear the wrath of god when i die. neither do i fear the lack of an afterlife or spiritual nothingness. if i die and there is nothing, i dont care. so be it. i choose to be agnostic because to me, it makes the most sense. if god does exist there isn't a single person out there that can say how he judges a soul and what he would or would not punish. i might get punished for being agnostic just as easily as i might be punished for being an atheist. maybe he is an incredibly logical being and he would punish people of faith due to the fact that it was irrational.

so no, i don't think its a cowards stand point. if anything it takes heat from both atheism and religion. one could just as easily say its cowardly to take a side.
One fact about categorical reasoning is that it's based on objective reality. So the moment that you hypothesized about something that you didn't care about, you contradicted your disposition as an agnostic by yourself becoming a theist: you made bogus claims about something that you knew nothing about.

And how can you prove that taking a side is cowardice? What's your categorical reasoning behind that unrealistic generalization? Before I'll toss your argument aside as straw man logical fallacy using bogus claims.


that was all hypothetical. the only claim i made there, was that i didn't mind what outcome there was after death. be it that god did or did not exist. i gave hypothetical examples to show you that my decision to be agnostic wasn't based in cowardice. it was based on logical reasoning. the only argument i put forward earlier is that lack of evidence is not the same as evidence that contradicts. so saying agnosticism is false on the premise of lack of evidence is in itself, illogical.

fair enough that i didn't put forward an argument for taking a side as cowardice. i merely meant that placing your faith in a religion is a "safe" net. people who fear that god exists and the repercussions behind not believing in god take a cowards stand point by blindly believing without evidence.

similarly people who refute the existence of god without evidence to disprove his existence (still not the same as lack of evidence) are just as equally using faith to justify their own beliefs. there's no logical argument that can be used to say it's anything but faith. the closest you can get is "it's more likely that god doesn't exist then that he does" using the lack of evidence argument. a statistical bet. perhaps not in itself cowardly though. so i shall accept that my previous comment wasn't fully true.

lastly, please don't make this about me, but rather about what the subject is. dismissing everything i say based off one line is rather weak counter argument if you ask me.
I said agnostics made a politically compromising position of "I don't know", not a logical claim on the existence of God Himself.

Finally, faith alone didn't stop me from criticizing the Christian God either. So what's your agnostic excuse for yourself being a weak-sauce?
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 12/20/10 , edited 12/20/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:

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.




I find this view quite intolerant of Agnostics- they have made a claim that because there is no absolute certainty for either side, we cannot rule out the possibility of there being a God, just as we cannot rule out the possibility of Gladamor Jilleon being Hitler's friend, that fucking Dago (poxes upon their kind), or that Godzilla is indeed a nonexistant monster that lives somewhere under the sea. We also cannot deny the possibility that the whole universe is on a Turtle's Back, carried upon the shoulders of four elephants, swimming toward an unknown destination to mate with other turtles with universes on their backs. This idea can be used against the existence of several historical figure- because there is no evidence of Wat Tyler but from contemprary accounts, can it be possible that his whole story, and the story of the Pleasant Revolt nothing more than a story to gleam the crown of the newly kinged Richard II. Because there is no evidence for the existence of King Oswald of Northumbria, King Penda of Mercia, or King Oswiu, son of King Oswald, should we think of them as probably made up too?

It is a perfectly reasonable approach to the whole Religion thing, just as Atheism or Theism- because there might be a God, we shouldn't rule it out altogether.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 12/22/10 , edited 12/22/10
I haven't read the whole thread, but I haven't seen anyone dispute the OP by using the etymology of the words (a)gnosticism and (a)theism. Agnosticism and gnosticism pertain to knowledge of deities, while theism and atheism refer to belief in deities. There is a big difference between knowledge and belief, which I don't feel like explaining since any dictionary could clarify the differences for anyone who might not know. Agnostic simply means "without knowledge," meaning that they don't know for sure if there are deities. This does not mean that they cannot believe in deities, in fact (a)gnostic by itself is not a very accurate adjective for describing one's attitudes about divine beings, which is why they are usually paired with "theist" or "atheist." Most agnostics (based on personal experience) are actually agnostic atheists since they seem to act as if they don't believe in any deities while professing their lack of knowledge about the existence of deities. Of course it is always possible that they are agnostic theists.

So my main point is that agnosticism and atheism/theism are not mutually exclusive, in fact a combination of the two is the best way to accurately describe a person's attitude towards deities. The OP is clearly a gnostic atheist, since he claims that he knows his beliefs (or lack thereof) are true. Agnosticism, whether it be theistic or atheistic, is the neutral stance, or at least the most open-minded stance, since it allows one to be open to criticism of their own beliefs, while gnosticism makes people profess their beliefs as true knowledge despite any and all contradicting evidence.
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.