Agnosticism requires faith

[Jack]

What you call yourself and the definitions used by those attempting to apply "formal logic" are often very different things.

My thought is that this problem is a result of the sources of knowledge. There are only two, authority and experience. Either what you know is distilled from what you've learned from others, or it's a result of your own experiences.

In this matter, neither source is entirely satisfactory. Personal experience can always be discounted by others who haven't shared your experiences or your interpretation of the lessons those experiences taught you. And authority can always be wrong, misinformed, biased, fantastic, etc.

Arguing definitions from authority is pointless, and trying to argue labels applied by myself to my experiences is impossible...so that leaves us having to define ourselves and respecting other's definitions of themselves.

[Kamehameha34]

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

Which is a bad thing. Opinions are subjective. The existence of a god is objective.

The two don't apply to eachother.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger 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.

I certainly would consider it so. I have no faith in the religious sense, and in fact, I consider the kind of blind faith that the religious use to be utterly without merit, rationality or intelligence. I am pleased that I have none of that ludicrous quality. I go where the evidence leads and nowhere else.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Cephus I certainly would consider it so. I have no faith in the religious sense, and in fact, I consider the kind of blind faith that the religious use to be utterly without merit, rationality or intelligence. I am pleased that I have none of that ludicrous quality. I go where the evidence leads and nowhere else.

Then you're an atheist, right?

[Kamehameha34]

The only non-faith based options are agnosticism and weak atheism (agnosticism, reworded).

[Cephus]

Quote by: Zhavric Then you're an atheist, right?

Yup and I have no religious faith of any kind.

[Kamehameha34]

You may want to address the proof in my signature. It's not clever or witty to initiate one of these "yuh huh-nuh uh" arguments.

[Fonceai]

Stop peddling that proof in your signature.

You have yet to improve it, and it is dire need of improvement.

[Kamehameha34]

It only seems that way to you because you feel I have the need to prove that "unproven statements default to unknown", which I don't for the proof to function.

[Fonceai]

Whatever.

You yourself admitted that there are parts that need correcting.

You might as well write, "Someone other than Fonceai address my proof" because I addressed it and found holes, and you haven't filled any of those holes yet.

[Kamehameha34]

I've filled the holes that actually existed - 90% of which were contextual issues.

[Fonceai]

That thing in your signature still uses Wiki, still replaces the word "deities" with the definition for the God, and is still inconclusive.

[Kamehameha34]

God is the deity..

That's quoted from the proof.

Also, it is in no way inconclusive. It proves that, if strong atheists can't back up their position with any evidence (which they can not, presently), then they hold a faith.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 That's quoted from the proof. Also, it is in no way inconclusive. It proves that, if strong atheists can't back up their position with any evidence (which they can not, presently), then they hold a faith.

This goes back to my question in another thread. Is the default answer in the absence of proof that something exists?

Seems to me, absent any proof of existence of an object, the default position is that the object doesn't exist. Assuming absence of any proof means that something DOES exist, defies common sense, even if it doesn't defy any law of logic.

Keith

[Fonceai]

And where in number 4 say that faith is belief without evidence?

I'll give you a little hint...

START USING A DICTIONARY!!!

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger This goes back to my question in another thread. Is the default answer in the absence of proof that something exists? Seems to me, absent any proof of existence of an object, the default position is that the object doesn't exist. Assuming absence of any proof means that something DOES exist, defies common sense, even if it doesn't defy any law of logic. Keith

There's no default position for something when there's no evidence for or against it. It's just unknown.

[Kamehameha34]

The first definition for "faith" on dictionary.com didn't have anything to do with the subject.

Wiki's article much better rounds off 'faith' as a concept.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 There's no default position for something when there's no evidence for or against it. It's just unknown.

So, using pure logic, the existence of underwear gnomes is "unknown"? The existence of yetis is "unknown"? The existence of flying monkeys is "unknown"? The existence of faries is "unknown"? The existence of Santa Claus is "unknown"? The existence of the Easter Bunny is "unknown"?

Seems like that leaves us with "logic" as being quite useless in questions of existence.

Keith

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Keith Hamburger So, using pure logic, the existence of underwear gnomes is "unknown"? The existence of yetis is "unknown"? The existence of flying monkeys is "unknown"? The existence of faries is "unknown"? The existence of Santa Claus is "unknown"? The existence of the Easter Bunny is "unknown"? Seems like that leaves us with "logic" as being quite useless in questions of existence. Keith

Not necessarily.

Some of those animals forgo their probable inexistence. We have evidence against them.

We have no evidence for or against god, though.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Not necessarily. Some of those animals forgo their probable inexistence. We have evidence against them. We have no evidence for or against god, though.

What is your evidence that Santa Clause doesn't exist? What is your evidence that underwear gnomes don't exist? What is your evidence that flying monkeys don't exist?

Keith