Remove this ad
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next  Last
No to the Illogical Agnostic.
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 8/7/10
It's been said time and time again. Agnosticism proper is not the belief in things that have not been proven, it is the disbelief in the indubitability of evidence. In complete sensory deprivation, you have no clue, simply. There is no indubitable information available to you. And while the information in a natural environment may be much more soothing, it is no different from the great fuckallness of sensory deprivation in the sense that neither one of them is absolute and indubitable. The neutral position is 'I do not know.'

I repeat what I have said, agnosticism properly so called is to be equated with a degree of scepticism. If it is to be equated with a degree of scepticism, it is not possible to accuse it of arbitrarily and fallaciously accepting certain claims, because that is not what it does. What it does is that it does not accept claims as indubitable, irrespective of the justification or body of opinion behind it. It is scepticism, and I do, therefore, propose that if we are to achieve anything in this thread, we need to pit atheism and scepticism against each other, because the amount of red herrings and strawmen on the part of the atheist side of the argument truly necessitates that we begin to address the true question: is scepticism illogical? The crusade against the illogical agnosticism which makes gratuitous and arbitrary assumptions and claims is a bunch of fuckery. Is scepticism illogical? That is the question at hand, I repeat.
67647 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 8/7/10 , edited 8/7/10
Again I think you nailed it.

For me, beyond skepticism is apathy.

I don't care WHAT people believe as long as they aren't pushy about it. And when they descend into insults I'll call them on it.

67647 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Center of the Uni...
Offline
Posted 8/7/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:




My ED actions are that in accordance as creating a debate. I find aggressive stance is the best action to draw a person into a real debate, other-wise shields are up and mask are on, and the debate goes no where.

On another note Being aggressive is only do to mirroring those I compete against. to continually evolve for the situation. As my rival parts aka the dogmatic play aggressive so shale I. As my Agnostic counterparts play aggressive so shall I!

On another note if one does not rock the boat ones Ideas only fall flat on deaf ears. While you do not like rocking the boat, I find it necessary in order to draw attention to my Ideals, and to draw in people to debate them, hence my reasoning for a aggressive stance for said debate is to draw in poster for the debate.

A Idea no matter how good it is; is useless if it fails to get peoples attention. (hence their is a form of logic with my aggressive nature in this forum.)


Actually It just makes me think you're acting like dicks. So how's it working out for you.

13175 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / The centroic of a...
Online
Posted 8/7/10 , edited 8/7/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:



You do realize that the lack of belief is the agnostic stance right? The atheist stance is denial.
Agnostics choose to not believe in the existence of gods fashioned by human imagination. A lack of faith.
Atheists choose to believe in the non-existence of gods. A faith in the nonexistent.

As for your zombie example, let me ask you this. Is it still possible for zombies to exist even if you find no evidence?

Let me ask the same idea in a different way then. Is it possible for colors to exist even if a blind man cannot observe them?
------------------------

Everything is situational, you cannot simply look at the very surface of events and derive a meaningful conclusion.
For your zombie example, the reason why it's very likely that zombies are not attacking if you cannot find any evidence is because people populate almost every square feet of land on this earth and due to our superb information networks, the evidence of zombies would be relayed rather quickly and easily accessible. However such is not the case for gods, human beings do not even populate the solar system, much less all 10 dimensions of existence. Using the argument of not being able to find any evidence for gods right now to deny their existence is like an ant denying the existence of airplanes because he can't see them. Actually, it would be something more along the scale of an ant denying the existence of black holes.

Religions are not all baseless blind faith. Saying God is an old Caucasian man with flowing white hair and a beard, that is a baseless claim. Saying something probably caused the universe because everything in the universe was the result of something else is a claim based on the observation of everything around us. There is proof of religion if you choose to look with an open mind, but your blind faith(atheism) does not allow you to do that. Not proof of the extravagant details of religion of course, but proof of some of the basic principles is definitely present. But REMEMBER, I'm not arguing this because I actually believe in religion because I don't. I believe in their possibility, but I do not believe in the religion itself. Don't get the two confused.

Edit: Or rather I should say "Stop getting the two confused."
Posted 8/7/10

excalion wrote:


DomFortress wrote:
1)A fluke is still a cause, yet you've no proof that such is the supernatural existence of metaphysical causation. Thereby,

2)How's a possibly physical fluke be the probability of a supernatural existence of metaphysical causation? Unless,

3)Just like you referring me unapologetically as "barbarian" is by your definition of being classy and different than me, which self-evidently it isn't. Therefore,

4)Nothingness is still the foundation of all your beliefs based on.

I have a truth-seeking disposition, not a believe system. It's thereby you're the one who's kept making faulty leap of logic known as an oxymoron, when you haven't made your reasoning clear on just how improbability is improbability, and how improbable supernatural existence of metaphysical causation can possibly be true. Whereas I OTOH wasn't as clumsy with my logic in the first place. Unless you wish to argue that metaphysically supernatural existence is both "physically" and "naturally" quite possible.


It is really annoying trying to decipher what you're trying to say, I said it last time we were discussing something, I'll say it again. So I'm just going to rewrite your sentences into what I think they mean and respond to those. If I'm interpreting something wrong then point it out to me.
1) You have no proof that a fluke is what created the universe.
I'm saying sometimes we can guess with zero evidence and still randomly be right. That's a fluke. In response to you saying we have a 0% chance to be right unless we arrived at the conclusion using evidence. Which is wrong. I'm not saying the creation of the universe was due to a fluke.

2) How can a physical fluke be used to explain a metaphysical entity creating the universe?
Refer to (1), you obviously misunderstood me and what I meant by a fluke. I stand by my word, everything is possible, not always probable but still possible. You need to make that distinction. Possible does NOT mean the same thing as probable and it certainly does not mean the same thing as inevitable.

(3) How can you say you have class when you're using the word 'barbarian' to insult me?
I'm using the word 'barbarian' to insult your personality, which is highly abrasive. I've also followed the golden rule of engagement in a debate to not use vulgarities. Especially considering the inconsequential nature of this debate, I've not once forsaken my integrity and given over to impulsive and biased insults. That alone is a display of the class I possess, the very same one that you lack. Thus, you are a bad-mouthing barbarian.

(4) You beliefs are based on nothing.
My beliefs are based on a variety of things which include but are not limited to:
(a)The fact that commonly accepted knowledge has been overturned countless times in history by a new idea that has not existed before. This convinced me to keep an open mind and not condemn something to impossibility no matter how improbable it may seem currently.

(b)The world around us is filled with cause and effect. This leads to two possible conclusions, that an entity/phenomenon existed before the universe and was the uncaused cause, or the universe itself is the uncaused cause. Both seem equally likely at this point, so I will keep both possibilities alive.

I've said this before, I will say this again: I know what I know, I don't know what I don't know, but I will not pretend to know what I don't know just so I can have an answer. Both the religious and the atheistic fall under the third category. They pretend to know what they couldn't possibly know for sure, based purely on their own preferences and vehemently deny the opposition as if to empower their own beliefs.
You openly accused me of being a barbarian, while you rewritten my statement in order for you to ignore my final critique completely?! You are no different that a hypocrite, when I OTOH was at least honest with myself.

Also, when you have no logical explanation of my final critique, you're a discredit to your own agnostic disposition to even having a belief, without you being skeptical with your own pseudoscience of imaginary probabilities. As according to DerfelCadarn's explanation about agnosticism.

Finally, the reason why I called your logic as "pseudoscience" is because the superstring theory has a more convincing logic to defeat my criticism.
38 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F
Offline
Posted 8/7/10

Darkphoenix3450 wrote:






I'd pull a Jessie Slaughter and tell you to "put a glock in your mouth and make a brain slushie," however, I'm just not as pretty or as popular as she is so let me, to the best of my feeble ability, give you the following quote to marinade in.

"We needn't ask whether the existence of God can be proved; we need only ask what difference believing or disbelieving in God will make in our lives. If we wait for absolute proof that there is or is not a God, we will wait forever."

Now, your given example leads me to believe that you must look like this:

If my claim is true, then I'd be careful with letting my brain out to play with the brains of others if I were you. Less you might find your world overturned by an uncanny discovery.




excalion wrote:



Excuse me, Excalion. Don't you have anything better to do than throw your pseudo-intellectual weight around in the poor Crunchyroll Extended Discussions forums?

obvious troll is obvious.

13175 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / The centroic of a...
Online
Posted 8/7/10 , edited 8/7/10

DomFortress wrote:


I rewrote your statements because as they stand, they are more gibberish than coherent thoughts. Also, I've already responded to your "final critique" though not in the way you wanted me to because I'm not about to let you pull a straw-man on me. I'm not going to let you goad me into trying to provide proof that "supernatural existences of metaphysical causation"s exist, because I don't believe they exist. I said I believe there is a possibility that they might, and the possibility will always be there unless you can provide proof that they don't. Now before you go ahead and rant about how it's difficult to prove a negative, I'm going to go ahead and say this right now. The very fact that it's difficult or impossible to prove a negative is evidence that it might be a positive.

In what way am I not skeptical about my own conclusions? I arrived at two conclusions from observing my surroundings, I never said they are the only two possible conclusions. In fact I remember in an earlier post I specifically stated that the possibility of neither of those conclusions being true is very high.

As for your criticism, I've already defeated it a few pages back. You're the one who is refusing to yield out of spite, there is no logic to cure that ailment. Are we done here? I'm getting tired of you misinterpreting me, I'm tired of repeating myself to someone who refuses to listen.
13175 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / The centroic of a...
Online
Posted 8/7/10

PeanuhBubber wrote:

Excuse me, Excalion. Don't you have anything better to do than throw your pseudo-intellectual weight around in the poor Crunchyroll Extended Discussions forums?

obvious troll is obvious.



I can think of something better to do bubber, can you find some rope and wax? No it's not what you think, I swear!













Or is it?
Posted 8/7/10

excalion wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


I rewrote your statements because as they stand, they are more gibberish than coherent thoughts. Also, I've already responded to your "final critique" though not in the way you wanted me to because I'm not about to let you pull a straw-man on me. I'm not going to let you goad me into trying to provide proof that "supernatural existences of metaphysical causation"s exist, because I don't believe they exist. I said I believe there is a possibility that they might, and the possibility will always be there unless you can provide proof that they don't. Now before you go ahead and rant about how it's difficult to prove a negative, I'm going to go ahead and say this right now. The very fact that it's difficult or impossible to prove a negative is evidence that it might be a positive.

In what way am I not skeptical about my own conclusions? I arrived at two conclusions from observing my surroundings, I never said they are the only two possible conclusions. In fact I remember in an earlier post I specifically stated that the possibility of neither of those conclusions being true is very high.

As for your criticism, I've already defeated it a few pages back. You're the one who is refusing to yield out of spite, there is no logic to cure that ailment. Are we done here? I'm getting tired of you misinterpreting me, I'm tired of repeating myself to someone who refuses to listen.
Then according to your own words here, just what the fuck are you?

excalion wrote:
You do realize that the lack of belief is the agnostic stance right? The atheist stance is denial.
Agnostics choose to not believe in the existence of gods fashioned by human imagination. A lack of faith.
Blow it out your ass!
38 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F
Offline
Posted 8/7/10


13175 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / The centroic of a...
Online
Posted 8/7/10 , edited 8/7/10

DomFortress wrote:


*Facepalm*
Look man, you are not George Carlin, stop trying to be him.

Ok, I'll do my best to explain this one more time because someone is obviously not getting it. Maybe I'll even toss a picture in there somewhere.

Before I said agnostics choose to not believe, then in a later post I said I do not believe in them I only believe they are not impossible. What exactly are you seeing as the contradiction? I see none.

The Difference Between Believing Something Is Not Impossible and Believing Something Is Truth

The Difference Between I Don't Believe They Exist and I Believe They Don't Exist.

Learn It

Edit: Picture
Posted 8/7/10 , edited 8/7/10

DerfelCadarn wrote:

It's been said time and time again. Agnosticism proper is not the belief in things that have not been proven, it is the disbelief in the indubitability of evidence. In complete sensory deprivation, you have no clue, simply. There is no indubitable information available to you. And while the information in a natural environment may be much more soothing, it is no different from the great fuckallness of sensory deprivation in the sense that neither one of them is absolute and indubitable. The neutral position is 'I do not know.'

I repeat what I have said, agnosticism properly so called is to be equated with a degree of scepticism. If it is to be equated with a degree of scepticism, it is not possible to accuse it of arbitrarily and fallaciously accepting certain claims, because that is not what it does. What it does is that it does not accept claims as indubitable, irrespective of the justification or body of opinion behind it. It is scepticism, and I do, therefore, propose that if we are to achieve anything in this thread, we need to pit atheism and scepticism against each other, because the amount of red herrings and strawmen on the part of the atheist side of the argument truly necessitates that we begin to address the true question: is scepticism illogical? The crusade against the illogical agnosticism which makes gratuitous and arbitrary assumptions and claims is a bunch of fuckery. Is scepticism illogical? That is the question at hand, I repeat.
Then please exam the following argument:

excalion wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


*Facepalm*
Look man, you are not George Carlin, stop trying to be him.

Ok, I'll do my best to explain this one more time because someone is obviously not getting it. Maybe I'll even toss a picture in there somewhere.

Before I said agnostics choose to not believe, then in a later post I said I do not believe in them I only believe they are not impossible. What exactly are you seeing as the contradiction? I see none.

The Difference Between Believing Something Is Not Impossible and Believing Something Is Truth

The Difference Between I Don't Believe They Exist and I Believe They Don't Exist.

Learn It
No proof, no logic, no understanding. No chance at me learning any difference between a double-negative as oppose to a positive.

"Not Impossibility" here is a double-negative, that's equal to "possibility". Thereby since you believe in possibility, then what's "not" to say that you believing the existence of any and all religious deities is "impossible"?

I wanna see your logic as an agnostic, you didn't have any. I wanna see your mathematics that your possibility derived from, you didn't have any. Your own condescending attitude notwithstanding, you're still a discredit as an agnostic, when you dared to explain your logic about something that you know nothing about.

What's your irrefutable proof at you ever being an agnostic? When you continuously displaying your lack of logic, while you shouldn't even be having a belief-based disposition. You not knowing anything due to your lack of belief as an agnostic, how can you even explain that all you know is that you don't know, is in and of itself logical? When you just claimed that you "know" that you "don't know".
8742 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Scotland, Aberdeen
Offline
Posted 8/7/10 , edited 8/7/10

excalion wrote:
*Facepalm*
Look man, you are not George Carlin, stop trying to be him.

Ok, I'll do my best to explain this one more time because someone is obviously not getting it. Maybe I'll even toss a picture in there somewhere.

Before I said agnostics choose to not believe, then in a later post I said I do not believe in them I only believe they are not impossible. What exactly are you seeing as the contradiction? I see none.

The Difference Between Believing Something Is Not Impossible and Believing Something Is Truth

The Difference Between I Don't Believe They Exist and I Believe They Don't Exist.

Learn It

Edit: Picture


Futile, you be herring'd and strawmann'd before long, because, apparently, a minute detail, pertaining to the social lives and general behaviour and practices of a tribe, purported to exist somewhere on a continent, or just an island afloat on top of a sea that may exist, or an ocean perhaps, depending on the realiability of the interpreations given by the people who may have seen it, or heard of it, or might have been, in other ways, informed about its existence, will offer important experience that may be transposed into our lives and such valuable proof can be derived therefrom that vitiates every point you, or anyone who disagrees with me, may make. I find this a totally reasonable argument, because, err, you are obviously wrong, since you disagree with my point, which is evidence of you being wrong.

Edit: for reasons apparent, consider mine a retrospective prophecy.
13175 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / The centroic of a...
Online
Posted 8/7/10

DomFortress wrote:


Do you see a difference between the possibility of me winning the lottery and me actually winning the lottery? That's the difference between possibility and inevitability.

You keep saying I'm illogical and ignorant, care to point out where I was being illogical or ignorant? Don't forget to include why.

I know that I don't know anything with complete certainty, but some things are more likely than others due to the convergence of similar experiences of phenomenons. Tell me how this is illogical.
Posted 8/7/10

excalion wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


Do you see a difference between the possibility of me winning the lottery and me actually winning the lottery? That's the difference between possibility and inevitability.

You keep saying I'm illogical and ignorant, care to point out where I was being illogical or ignorant? Don't forget to include why.

I know that I don't know anything with complete certainty, but some things are more likely than others due to the convergence of similar experiences of phenomenons. Tell me how this is illogical.
Someday, somehow. You. Will. Die.

That's a much stronger prediction based on uncertainty such as the nature of your exact time and cause of death, as oppose to you believing in a possibility that I might be a sloth.
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.