Agnosticism requires faith

[Kamehameha34]

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

If what they say exists contradicts what I know to be true or likely, then I will regard it as false or unlikely.


If what they say exists doesn't contradict any of what I know to be true or likely, then I will regard it as unknown.

[Jack]

So in calling yourself an agnostic, you're saying the concept of gods, as far as you know, is true or likely?

[Kamehameha34]

If what they say exists doesn't contradict any of what I know to be true or likely, then I will regard it as unknown.

No.

[Jack]

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.

If you think this is a formal debate, you're very wrong. In informal debate, we are indeed exchanging opinions.
However, I don't debate links. I'll debate your thoughts, your opinions, not someone else's who isn't even a member here.
As to Argumentum ad ignorantium, appeal to ridicule and the other sophisticated sounding phrases you post so frequently, I'm beginning to think you don't really know what they mean. I'd appreciate seeing you paraphrase those concepts in your own words (not citing another Wikipedia definition) so I know that you have actually understood their meaning.

[Jack]

But wait, you claim to be an agnostic, you claim to be unable to determine the validity of the theist's claims, therefore the possibility of gods is unknown to you. And if the possibility of gods is unknown, then by your own words you must believe gods don't contradict any of what you know to be true or likely.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Isherwood If you think this is a formal debate, you're very wrong. In informal debate, we are indeed exchanging opinions.

So you concede that atheism is indefensible in a formal debate as a non-faith?

However, I don't debate links. I'll debate your thoughts, your opinions, not someone else's who isn't even a member here.

I don't debate subjective concepts. The logical invalidity of atheism as a non-faith is certainly not subjective. I'm merely pointing out that you miscategorized your theological stance.

As to Argumentum ad ignorantium, appeal to ridicule and the other sophisticated sounding phrases you post so frequently, I'm beginning to think you don't really know what they mean. I'd appreciate seeing you paraphrase those concepts in your own words (not citing another Wikipedia definition) so I know that you have actually understood their meaning.

If you think I don't understand the definitions because you don't see where they apply to your post, I'd gladly point them out. Anyway:

Argumentum ag ignorantium - A fallacious, or invalid attempt to add weight to your claim through a lack of evidence for an antithetical claim.

Appeal to ridicule - Another fallacious attempt to prove a concept by submitting several seemingly ridiculous scenarios that would result through inexistence, or invalidity of said concept.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Isherwood But wait, you claim to be an agnostic, you claim to be unable to determine the validity of the theist's claims, therefore the possibility of gods is unknown to you. And if the possibility of gods is unknown, then by your own words you must believe gods don't contradict any of what you know to be true or likely.

Correct, the concept of gods does not contradict what I know to be true or likely. This doesn't mean that I find the concept of gods as true or likely.

If I were to draw "the concept of gods is true or likely" from "the concept of gods does not contradict what I know to be true or likely", I would be committing argumentum ad ignorantium - drawing a conclusion because of a lack of evidence for an opposing conclusion.

[Jack]

So you concede that atheism is indefensible in a formal debate as a non-faith?

No, I'm saying what I said, this is an informal debate.

I'm merely pointing out that you miscategorized your theological stance.

As I've repeatedly pointed out, you're misguided in that attempt.

or invalidity of said concept.

Based on your previous posts, I deduce this is a copied explanation. Can you provide an example of each concept not copied from another source?

The logical invalidity of atheism as a non-faith is certainly not subjective.

I'd appreciate an example of that, too, please.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Isherwood No, I'm saying what I said, this is an informal debate.

So definitions suddenly don't apply?

As I've repeatedly pointed out, you're misguided in that attempt.

Then, apparently, so are the authors of the encyclopedia britannica - and the dictionary, for that matter.

Based on your previous posts, I deduce this is a copied explanation. Can you provide an example of each concept not copied from another source?

Clarify this request.

And no, you didn't deduce anything. You did not employ deductive reasoning. You induced - incorrectly, at that.

[Jack]

Clarify this request.

Provide an example in your own words of each of your pet phrases.

So definitions suddenly don't apply?

Not on their own. Only in support of your own, original thinking.

Then, apparently, so are the authors of the encyclopedia britannica - and the dictionary, for that matter.

I don't see why not. Chances are those entries were created by theists, since a majority of humans are theists of one sort or another. What guarantee do we have that on subjects like this they're being rigorously objective?

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Isherwood Provide an example in your own words of each of your pet phrases.

Appeal to ridicule -

"If the big bang theory is true, you must be moving farther and farther away from me!"

Ad ignorantium -

"I see no reason to believe that there is a gold deposit under New York, so there is no gold deposit under New York."

Not on their own. Only in support of your own, original thinking.

That's what I've been doing. Using definitions, I've constructed a proof as to why atheism is a faith.

I don't see why not. Chances are those entries were created by theists, since a majority of humans are theists of one sort or another. What guarantee do we have that on subjects like this they're being rigorously objective?

How we categorize our thoughts is meaningless. It's what the definition, based on the operative language, implies. You are operating on a definition for "atheist" that is ambiguous and inconcise - so that it's really just a redefinition for "agnosticism".

[Jack]

Using definitions, I've constructed a proof as to why atheism is a faith.

You've tried and failed. Several of us have pointed that out. You started out with inaccurate definitions, now your house is built on sand.

You are operating on a definition for "atheist" that is ambiguous and inconcise

You've simply failed to be enough of a freethinker to understand it. You're locked into your mantra and refuse to respect other opinions.
What's ambiguous about refusing to accept a flawed concept of gods?

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Isherwood You've tried and failed. Several of us have pointed that out. You started out with inaccurate definitions, now your house is built on sand.

Do you have any references to point out how my proof is based on inaccurate definitions?

No, you have bullish denial. That's about it.

You've simply failed to be enough of a freethinker to understand it. You're locked into your mantra and refuse to respect other opinions. What's ambiguous about refusing to accept a flawed concept of gods?

You mistakenly label atheism as the only position that doesn't accept the concept of gods.

That's what's been your obstacle in understanding. Simple unacceptence of theistical musings is a property shared by agnostics and atheists. Weak atheism = Agnosticism. Strong atheism, or traditional atheism, is the position I'm attacking.

[Jack]

Here's another annoyance in debating you.

Do you have any references to point out how my proof is based on inaccurate definitions? No, you have bullish denial. That's about it.

If you'd have just posted the first sentence, you'd have shown some respect in allowing me to respond. Instead, you insultingly answered for me. Why should I bother to respond further if you can answer all your own questions?

[Kamehameha34]

Why'd you give me the grounds to answer for you when you could have provided sources, then refuted at least one of my points?

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Jagged Additionally, atheists that simply dont believe in god, but also simply dont have ANY other ideas or values towards creation and why we are here don't have faith in anything. Thus People who are atheists for chosen reasons do require faith, while those that are simply nothing but non-god believers are indeed faithless.

You should be careful how you use words. One commonly accepted definition of "faith", used even by those with such, is holding a belief in the absence of evidence, or even in opposition to evidence to the contrary.

While those with "faith" might consider calling someone "faithless" as being an insult (largely as evidenced by the context of the word, with your quote above being an example), those without faith would most likely believe it to be a compliment.

Keith

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 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.

Any debate of the existence, or non-existence, of god ultimately results in being such. Two people throwing opinions at each other.

One person will claim that, because there is no evidence that god does not exist, that god must exist. Another claiming that, because there is no evidence that god does exist, god must not exist. Each arguing from a position of ignorance, in regards to rationality, without being able to present anything beyond the thoughts that go on in their own minds to prove their points.

Your claims to "logic" notwithstanding, everything that is to truly be debated must have something empirical to start with. All theists have to begin with is that people have believed in a god (or gods), therefore claim that their position is established and it is up to the anti-theists (be they atheist or agnostic) to prove them wrong. Anti-theists, on the other hand, begin with the idea that there is nothing substantial (which brings us back to the definition of "faith") to back up that historical belief in deities and that it is up to the theist to prove them wrong.

Since neither side will back down to the basics, everyone just ends up "throwing their opinions at one another", and, of course nothing is ever "decided".

Keith

[Keith Hamburger]

OK. I'll throw in some more of my opinions here. Largely why debates such as this are useless.

One point being that the terms agnostic and atheist, in modern usage, are often self-labels that can apply to a very wide array of anti-theist belief. I, personally, use the term agnostic to describe myself. Is this because I believe that there is as good a chance that there exists a god as that the doesn't? No. I'm quite well convinced that there is no such thing as a "god". I live my life based off of this belief and make no plans and give no thought to what some "god" might do or wish me to do.

Given that, why do I call myself an "agnostic", rather than an "atheist"? Simply because I, again personally, believe that, in the absence of evidence for the existence or non-existence of a "supreme being", there is some miniscule possibility that I could be proven wrong. I don't know what form that proof could take but I believe it is the ultimate in hubris to consider myself to be absolutely correct in such a matter in which there is no real evidence one way or another. I take the term "atheist" to mean that the question is answered, absolutely, that there is no god. While it may be so to some people, which they MAY have to take on faith, or they may have evidence of which I am unaware, to me, there is no such absolute answer.

Beyond that, in all practicality, these sort of discussions have no application. As far as I know, there is no actual proof one way or another. My personal opinion is, absent such proof there is no purpose in living one's life based on an arcane idea of one god or another. Even if you choose one, the chances are you've got the wrong one out of the thousands that have been proposed throughout history and pre-history. Is this an argument from ignorance? Perhaps. But, virtually every argument for or against the existence of a deity comes down to that. And, I'm not out to formally prove one thing or another, just trying to figure out how to live my own life to the fullest.

Even if it were possible to prove that a deity exists through some sort of formal logic, that still doesn't establish the form of that deity beyond the possibility of some general characteristics. Virtually every theist making such arguments, however, starts with some sort of idea of the form of the deity they wish to argue for. In these discussions, based as they are in the Western World, that form virtually always is that of the Christian god. What really should be argued here is not whether logic tells us if a god exists or not, but whether the god of Christianity is the one real and true god. The arguments that have taken place under the multitude of threads posted have done nothing in that regard.

Another question is, if a god can be proven to exist, would there be anything beyond that which could help me to live a better life. From what I can tell of Christianity, the answer for me would be a resounding "No". If we combine all of the canonical books of the Bible, it shows a god that is quite capricious and self contradictory. And, the believers in that book cannot even agree on the source of their most holy of books. Perhaps some of the books were written by an apocryphal king name David. Perhaps some were written by followers of followers (and maybe etc. ad nauseum) of the godman they call Jesus.

As far as I can tell, much the same applies to most every deity proposed by man. The one possible exception would be the beliefs of the Buddhists, but they don't claim to be inspired by a supreme being.

So, I will continue to call myself an agnostic, even though I am quite certain there is no god. All of your "formal logic" cannot do anything to convince me otherwise, and, even if it could, you still will not have proven your own personal god. I will continue to live my life to the best of my ability and try to be the best person possible in this life because, as far as I can tell, this life is all there is. If, someday, I am proven wrong (most likely after my death if I am given the opportunity to meet this god in some sort of afterlife), the best I can hope to do is offer the explanation that, given the evidence and opportunities that was presented to me, I lived the best life possible being the flawed creature that said god created.

If said god is omnipotent as is usually claimed, I can't take any further responsibilities for his/her failings.

Keith

[Jack]

I take the term "atheist" to mean that the question is answered, absolutely, that there is no god.

I consider this a misconception, a theistic interpretation of the atheist's stance. As you can see from what I've said before, atheism is the default position of one unconvinced by the theist's arguments in support of the concept of gods. I might consider your stance to be atheistic, but you may call yourself whatever you wish. The important thing is that you have given some thought to the topic and have arrived at a position you can defend.

That's the value to these debates. I know there are people who don't want to bother considering their philosophical opinions. But for those who do question, atheists can at least champion freethinking, thinking for one's self. Churches would have you believe that doubt is a sin. Atheists can encourage doubters by affirming their right to question, supporting their desire to know for themselves what they think. Getting locked into strict definitions is as harmful to freethinking as following strict religious teaching. You don't even have to apply a label to your opinions.

I will continue to live my life to the best of my ability and try to be the best person possible in this life

At the end of the day, that's the best any of us can try to do.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Isherwood I consider this a misconception, a theistic interpretation of the atheist's stance. As you can see from what I've said before, atheism is the default position of one unconvinced by the theist's arguments in support of the concept of gods. I might consider your stance to be atheistic, but you may call yourself whatever you wish. The important thing is that you have given some thought to the topic and have arrived at a position you can defend.

Which was my whole point. What you call yourself and the definitions used by those attempting to apply "formal logic" are often very different things. The idea of an atheist being one who is completely settled and seems to take the non-existence of a detity "on faith" because of the lack of proof, with no absolute proof either way is a commonly held definition. It may not be formally correct, but it is the one that is going to be tossed out in these arguments. I refuse to accept that label. From an anti-theists point of view, I am most likely an atheist. However, I don't accept the usage that a theist would attach to that, so I prefer to use the term agnostic.

Of course, I then get thrown in with those who think the answer is still "up in the air", which I also refuse. Once again, we all get stuck somewhere, by someone.

Keith