Quote:
Quote by: Kamehameha34  Agnostics don't "believe" anything.. You still don't understand. Claims can be unknown. Agnostics hold that, due to the complete lack of evidence, they don't have any grounds to make an accurate and intellectually responsible conclusion regarding the "god" claim. Lack of conclusion = Unknown. |
No, you still don't understand. I believe that there has been countless argument with you on this, and you STILL don't understand.
The traditional, classic definition of agnosticism DIRECTLY INVOLVES BELIEF, in that even if there is any evidence for/against the existence of the god, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to find. That is a claim that we cannot be certain about, hence, it takes faith to stick by that claim.
How many different ways does it have to be put to you?
You need to cite a specific sub-category of agnosticism, that is, a modified ideology that isn't radical enough from the array to be labelled a different theological stance entirely. Right now you are ignoring the classic definition of it, and applying a modified definition to it. It's not other people's problem if you mess around with definitions of broader terms instead of just being specific.
Quote:
Quote by: Kamehameha34 Let's speed up the discussion a little:
You're going to say that god contradicts proven claims.
After much insistence, I'll have you support that claim.
You'll respond that energy and matter can't be "created".
I'll respond that a god only needs to make said matter and energy a collection. |
And I'll stick my nose in and say that the discussion isn't going anywhere, as both you and the theist are talking vague nonsense.
How is anyone supposed to interpret the word 'collection' in that last statement? There is a difference between speaking complexities, and speaking words that poke the air, and lose thier meaning, and turn what was before a clear discussion into a murky, degenerative slugfest.