"I don't know" - Is that so hard to comprehend?

[rez]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 That's what weak and strong atheism is. "Underwear is a bad term. What you really mean is skivvies."

Weak and Strong atheism are not articulate terms. What exactly is "weak" or "strong" about having knowledge? It is agnostic atheism or gnostic atheism for now on.

You have never asked for evidence, nor have I been out to prove this.

yes you did. Stated below is you claiming that atheist's know for a fact that god does not exist.

Quote by: Kamehameha atheists propose the positive assertion that "the one supreme being, the creator and ruler of the universe" does not exist.

No silly, atheists do not propose much of anything. Atheists lack a belief in god(s).

Quote by: Kamehameha That's not atheism. That's rationalism. Atheism doesn't have the only claim to logic.

Atheism deals with the lack of belief in supernatural constructs that can not be proven. You are right, that is a rational stance, but it is also an atheist stance. In the example I provided, someone who lacks belief in all gods would point out that double standard.

You seem to be fumbling, you have yet to prove that atheists require faith.

I would compare Kamehameha stance to this statement when it comes to the idea of supernatural beings.

"It's just as irrelevant to debate between those who choose not to believe that there are invisible flying spaghetti monsters and those who do believe in flying spaghetti monsters. Both assertions are unprovable, and that is why I am agnostic."

I would like to ask you one final question Kame. Do you lack a belief in Thor or do you have a belief in Thor?

[Kamehameha34]

Weak and Strong atheism are not articulate terms. What exactly is "weak" or "strong" about having knowledge? It is agnostic atheism or gnostic atheism for now on.

Get over it. Stop whining about semantics.

No silly, atheists do not propose much of anything. Atheists lack a belief in god(s).

Atheist, as in not agnostic, as in strong atheist.

Atheism deals with the lack of belief in supernatural constructs that can not be proven.

No, that's anyone who isn't a theist. If that's all that describes you, then you're an agnostic.


I'm ignoring any bullshit in the last few paragraphs, where you epitomize your ignorance of the term "agnosticism".

[RickSp]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Mmmk, now you can say that a fourteen year-old refused to entertain your immaturity. Don't post without an argument.

Being called immature by a 14 year old is amusing indeed. So that is the best you can do? I post arguments and all you post insults. Very telling.

The obvious point that you seem incapable of understanding is that agnosticism is only possibly valid if the existence of god is indeed provable. It need not be proven, only provable. If that is the case, one might argue that not enough evidence exists to positively confirm the exist of god but that there is sufficient support so that it cannot be ruled out. There is an obvious epistemological double standard at work here, yet nevertheless, one might make the argument. Not a strong case, but an argument nevertheless.

If however one starts, as you have, by stating that god is unfalsifiable, then the entire arguement collapses into faith, because an unfalsifiable concept can only be supported by faith. No evidence or proof is ever possible and demanding such is simply foolish.

Now go ahead, ignore my arguments and insult me some more. That seems about your speed.

[Jagged]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Stuff

Chill out. In my last post i wasn't even challenging your thoughts. I was simply clearing up what Rick said and was stating my own reasons as to why i lean towards the atheist side, and i also acknowledged that i knew you would disagree because you are absolutist. Chill.

[rez]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Get over it. Stop whining about semantics. Atheist, as in not agnostic, as in strong atheist. No, that's anyone who isn't a theist. If that's all that describes you, then you're an agnostic. I'm ignoring any bullshit in the last few paragraphs, where you epitomize your ignorance of the term "agnosticism".

horrible rebuttal.

Do you lack a belief in Thor or do you have a belief in Thor? I want an answer.

[Jagged]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 And I've tolerated this before, partly because of your obvious lack of knowledge of the topic, but don't bother addressing me if you're going to continue to make an ass of yourself.

Chill out. In my last post i wasn't even challenging your thoughts. If you read carefully you would have seen i wasn't "addressing you" until the question, which was sincerely asked. I was simply clearing up what Rick said and was stating my own reasons as to why i lean towards the atheist side, and i also acknowledged that i knew you would disagree because you are absolutist. Just chill.

Do you lack a belief in Thor or do you have a belief in Thor? I want an answer.

Screw Thor, i want to know if he believes in pink unicorns that live on pluto! (This is yet another sincere question)

Oh yes, and i wan't to clear up what Kam is arguing. He is arguing what that the best stance to take is agnosticism if you don't actually care about the subject or practicality at all. Debating over agnosticism is a completely different realm of Religious Debate than everything else discussed on these boards.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: rez horrible rebuttal.

Horrible posts beget horrible rebuttals. Keep in mind I'm not a theist.

Do you lack a belief in Thor or do you have a belief in Thor? I want an answer.

I believe that Thor, as the god that creates all lightning, does not exist - based on the evidenced fact that lightning is caused by static electricity.



By the way, Rick, your undoubtedly long winded response is lost on someone for whom you take residence in the ignore list of.

[rez]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I believe that Thor, as the god that creates all lightning, does not exist - based on the evidenced fact that lightning is caused by static electricity.

Maybe I should of asked this then....

Do you lack a belief in god or do you have a belief in god?

[Kamehameha34]

That's a false dichotomy. The antithesis of belief is disbelief, or belief in the negative.

So, I lay right in the middle. That means I lack belief, and I also lack disbelief.

[Jack]

The antithesis of belief is disbelief, or belief in the negative.

You're correct in the first statement, but belief in the negative is a form of belief, not its antithesis.

[Kamehameha34]

Should have clarified. The antithesis of belief, in regards to a subject is disbelief. Emphasis on subject.

[rez]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 That's a false dichotomy. The antithesis of belief is disbelief, or belief in the negative. So, I lay right in the middle. That means I lack belief, and I also lack disbelief.

So you neither have a belief or lack a belief....I don't know if that is logical or not...

When any normal person lacks proof in something they hold no belief in that something. They lack belief....

there is no proof in any gods existence, therefore, I lack belief in gods. I have no belief regarding the subject of the belief.

[Kamehameha34]

So you neither have a belief or lack a belief....I don't know if that is logical or not...

I didn't say that. I said you presented a false dichotomy.

When any normal person lacks proof in something they hold no belief in that something. They lack belief....

Just as I lack belief in the proposition that "no god exists".

[rez]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I didn't say that. I said you presented a false dichotomy.

how does one lack disbelief?

[Jagged]

Quote by: rez how does one lack disbelief?

by lacking belief, because Disbelief = a type of belief.

[Kamehameha34]

I'll conceptualize it:

There is a new, untested medicine. Without researching or running tests, three doctors hold a conference to discuss it. One says "this medicine will help people." His colleague disagrees. "There's no proof that it will help. The only logical conclusion is that it won't help."

Then there's me in the corner, watching television, waiting for the lab results to arrive for the medicine. When asked if I think it would help, I simply respond "I'unno."

[RickSp]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 By the way, Rick, your undoubtedly long winded response is lost on someone for whom you take residence in the ignore list of.

LOL. Just as well. Insults are all you can mange anyway, not to mention dreadful sentence structure.

[rez]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 I'll conceptualize it: There is a new, untested medicine. Without researching or running tests, three doctors hold a conference to discuss it. One says "this medicine will help people." His colleague disagrees. "There's no proof that it will help. The only logical conclusion is that it won't help." Then there's me in the corner, watching television, waiting for the lab results to arrive for the medicine. When asked if I think it would help, I simply respond "I'unno."

An agnostic never will know. As an agnostic, you would think that the test results would never arrive. If you actually follow the definition of "agnosticism" in your little story, then the most logical position is the atheistic one.

Please clear up what a lack of disbelief is.

edit to add: you will never know and that is why you take the position of "I do not know"

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: rez An agnostic never will know. As an agnostic, you would think that the test results would never arrive.

No, that's strong agnosticism.

If you actually follow the definition of "agnosticism" in your little story, then the most logical position is the atheistic one.

Sure, if you broaden the definition of "atheist" into agnosticism.

Please clear up what a lack of disbelief is.

Lack of belief in the negative.

[rez]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 No, that's strong agnosticism.

Thomas Henry Huxley and agnosticism

Unless Huxley coined the term "strong agnosticism", you are wrong. I do not go by terms that have been invented by random people. Not once did you mention which flavor of agnosticism you abide by. Because of your lack of communication you have mislead people through ten pages of debate.

Nobody can show how your thoughts are flawed because you keep changing around your stance due to lack of communication. If you are going to debate you need to discuss your stance and everything about your stance, nobody should have to pry it out of you.