Agnosticism requires faith

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Cephus No, atheism, by definition, is not believing in god(s). a - without theos - belief in god(s) Agnosticism, as it's being described, is really weak atheism.

Incorrect. Atheism amounts to the positive assertion that no gods exist. "Weak atheism" is simply a redefinition of agnosticism - for atheists that don't want to be subject to the "lack of proof" aspect of their claim, but don't want to seemingly change their beliefs.

Or you believe it is impossible to know whether or not a god exists (agnosticism), or you just don't give a damn (ignosticism). You're trying to paint a black and white world where none exists.

No, I'm using dictionary definitions and encyclopedia citations. We base our communication around what each word means. Claiming that definitions "aren't black and white" to paint bulls-eyes around your points is intellectual dishonesty.

On that note, agnosticism is a simple "I don't know" to the question of existence of a creator of the universe.

Do you know if there's a universal creator?

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: rez That is correct Jagged. The word "belief " reflects hope and the word "consider" describes predicting. This logic was proposed to Kamehameha34 in the thread "Agnosticism is the only non-faith", but he willfully ignored it.

Bullshit.

The whole point of agnosticism is to not "consider" either claims until there is evidence for either.

[agustine]

To Kamehameha34. With respect to your comment

Agnostics, by definition, only consider evidence.

Despite the fact that agnosticism is defined quite differently from the way and manner in which you describe it, I have two questions: Do you require evidence for all beliefs? and, Is the degree of evidence you require in order to justify proper warrant for theistic beliefs uniform for all beliefs?

Augustine

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: agustine To Kamehameha34. With respect to your comment Despite the fact that agnosticism is defined quite differently from the way and manner in which you describe it, I have two questions: Do you require evidence for all beliefs? and Is the degree of evidence you require in order to justify proper warrant for theistic beliefs uniform for all beliefs? Augustine

I described the point of agnosticism, not the definition.

And yes, I require equal evidence for all claims in order to consider them - an equal amount.

[rez]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Bullshit. The whole point of agnosticism is to not "consider" either claims until there is evidence for either.

And the point of atheism is to consider both claims and make a prediction as to which claim is more plausible. Atheism holds no certain knowledge or facts that have no evidence or verification, but guesses based on existing proven claims.

No atheist hopes god does not exist, therefore, no atheist has faith god does not exist. You are very stubborn little boy and need to change your attitude.

[Jagged]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Bullshit. The whole point of agnosticism is to not "consider" either claims until there is evidence for either.

Yeah, he actually didn't rephrase what i meant. I take it we simply have different definitions of the word "consider." Usually i take "consider" to mean to think about, not necessarily holding an opinion of any sort.

[Jack]

The whole point of agnosticism is to not "consider" either claims until there is evidence for either.

This seems contradictory to the idea that agnosticism is a process for determining the validity of claims. If you refuse to consider other claims, how do you ever hope to validate or invalidate those claims? The point of being considered agnostic shouldn't be to remain blissfully ignorant. Agnosticism should be a means to reach a conclusion. And obviously I think that conclusion will be atheism.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: rez And the point of atheism is to consider both claims and make a prediction as to which claim is more plausible. Atheism holds no certain knowledge or facts that have no evidence or verification, but guesses based on existing proven claims. No atheist hopes god does not exist, therefore, no atheist has faith god does not exist. You are very stubborn little boy and need to change your attitude.

You need to cut out this idiotic condescension, especially considering you are the one who has no idea what "faith" means.

Atheism has no evidence against the existence of a creator. Atheists believe that gods don't exist without any proof.

Follow the link in my signature. All of your bullish errors are addressed in that proof.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Isherwood This seems contradictory to the idea that agnosticism is a process for determining the validity of claims. If you refuse to consider other claims, how do you ever hope to validate or invalidate those claims? The point of being considered agnostic shouldn't be to remain blissfully ignorant. Agnosticism should be a means to reach a conclusion. And obviously I think that conclusion will be atheism.

Agnosticism is not a process. Agnosticism is a state of being.

To "consider" means that you think carefully about something, or to regard or deem to be - depending on which defintion you accept.

Neither of them are included in the state of agnosticism, because being agnostic doesn't require that you "think carefully about" either claim of divinity, or lack thereof, or that you deem either to be true.

[Jack]

Atheism has no evidence against the existence of a creator. Atheists believe that gods don't exist without any proof.

What creator? What gods? We have no proof that something that exists only in the minds of believers and has never evidenced itself to exist in reality? You really need to think about that ridiculous statement instead of repeating it in hopes that it will take on the appearance of reasonableness.

I suggest you educate yourself by reading a book from an atheist's point of view. I'd recommend "Natural Atheism" by David Eller.

[Kamehameha34]

Wow. Two fallacies in one post.

What creator? What gods? We have no proof that..

Argumentum ad ignorantium..

something that exists only in the minds of believers and has never evidenced itself to exist in reality? You really need to think about that ridiculous statement instead of repeating it in hopes that it will take on the appearance of reasonableness.

..and appeal to ridicule.

[Jack]

Rolling out your pet phrases without a whit of thought involved deserves no response.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Isherwood Rolling out your pet phrases without a whit of thought involved deserves no response.

Fascinating. Your argument for atheism is still fallacious, and has no bearing within the realm of logic. Believing that nothing exists just because you think anything else would be "ridiculous" still constitutes faith.

[rez]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Atheism has no evidence against the existence of a creator. Atheists believe that gods don't exist without any proof.

Atheists think that god(s) don't exist(s). No belief required.

Follow the link in my signature. All of your bullish errors are addressed in that proof.

You willfully ignored the second sentence in wiki's definition.
You willfully ignored that trust,hope, and confidence are all Synonyms of faith.

If I am as logical as you are, I would conclude that you are willfully ignorant.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: rez Atheists think that god(s) don't exist(s). No belief required.

Do you believe that no gods exist?

All you proposed was the inverse of the four terms fallacy.

You willfully ignored the second sentence in wiki's definition.

The second sentence defines atheism as criticism of theistic beliefs based on logic, but doesn't regard them as logically critical of their own beliefs.

You really want to define yourself as one who employs double standards?

You willfully ignored that trust,hope, and confidence are all Synonyms of faith.

A word isn't defined by it's synonyms.

Synonyms are irrelevant. We are talking about belief, and faith. All that's needed are definitions.

[Jack]

Fascinating. Your argument for atheism is still fallacious, and has no bearing within the realm of logic. Believing that nothing exists just because you think anything else would be "ridiculous" still constitutes faith.

Try to actually rebut my opinion with substance. How is it fallacious? How does it have no bearing in the realm of logic? Your last sentence makes no sense.

Atheism makes no claims of substance regarding religion. We don't accept the substantial claims made by theists. We have no-god-belief, the literal meaning of a*the*ism. After much study and thought I have arrived at the conclusion of atheism. Not faith, not belief, but an intelligent thought-out conclusion that theism has failed to support their supposition.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Isherwood Try to actually rebut my opinion with substance. How is it fallacious? How does it have no bearing in the realm of logic?

Follow the links with which I responded to your post. I'll rebut your post with substance when you back it up with substance. Debate doesn't consist of two people heedlessly throwing their opinions at eachother.

Your last sentence makes no sense.

Everything you said in your post was fallacious. If it is fallacious, it is logically invalid.

Atheism makes no claims of substance regarding religion. We don't accept the substantial claims made by theists. We have no-god-belief, the literal meaning of a*the*ism. After much study and thought I have arrived at the conclusion of atheism. Not faith, not belief, but an intelligent thought-out conclusion that theism has failed to support their supposition.

If you simply hold that theists have failed to back up their claim, then you're an agnostic. If you conclude from that that no god exists, then you're an atheist.

[Jack]

Agnosticism is not a process. Agnosticism is a state of being.

So should I take the word of someone who seems to take all his knowledge from Wikipedia, or the word of the man who invented the term?
"Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle. Positively the principle may be expressed as, in matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it can carry you without other considerations.
(Essay "Agnosticism" 1889)

[Jack]

If you conclude from that that no god exists, then you're an atheist.

If someone says something exists but can't show any evidence of that being true, what conclusion would you reach?

[Kamehameha34]

I don't see how that contradicts what I said.

He said it was not a creed.

Quote by: Dictionary.com 1. any system, doctrine, or formula of religious belief, as of a denomination. 2. any system or codification of belief or of opinion. 3. an authoritative, formulated statement of the chief articles of Christian belief, as the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, or the Athanasian Creed.

It indeed does not constitute a belief.



Agnosticism does also constitute a method, but that is irrelevant in this context. In his paper, he said that the agnostic method entails "letting your reason take it as far as it can, and not farther"*. That's simply the method employed by people who have adopted the state of agnosticism - A complete absence of faith.