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

[Gods_Mercenary]

Theists have to qualify their beliefs, but what the real thing comes down to that god exists, atheists think god doesn't exist. Anything in the middle is by defenition agnosticism.

[pikatore]

And another thing kama, stop saying you have evidence! You have absolutely no evidence that shows that it is impossible to find out whether or not there is a god..

[pikatore]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Anything in the middle is by defenition agnosticism.

Rubbish.

You are still making simplifications.

Agnosticism, like atheism or theism, falls into it's own variation of categories. Some forms of atheism place heavy doubt on the existence of a god, since thiests cannot provide any evidence for them.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Heavy doubt is not atheism, it is agnosticism tilted towards atheism.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: pikatore And another thing kama, stop saying you have evidence! You have absolutely no evidence that shows that it is impossible to find out whether or not there is a god..

Wow. Just, wow. That is a complete and total misinterpretation of what I've been saying throughout this entire thread.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Heavy doubt is not atheism, it is agnosticism tilted towards atheism.

Weak atheism is born out of heavy doubt.

You say 'i believe that unicorns exist'. I have heavy doubt due to your claim having no evidence, and that leads me to make the natural assumption of false until proven true, and therefore assume thestic beliefs to be false.

And there is no such thing as 'agnosticism tilted towards atheism'. You still need to read up on your definition of agnosticism.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Wow. Just, wow. That is a complete and total misinterpretation of what I've been saying throughout this entire thread.

No, I think I understood the word 'EVIDENCE' pretty damn well.

[Jagged]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Picking a side at random doesn't make you any "closer to the real answer".

You called somebody's reasoning towards becoming a strong atheist "an educated guess" yourself. Thats not random.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Jagged You called somebody's reasoning towards becoming a strong atheist "an educated guess" yourself. Thats not random.

No, I called Captain Chaos's reason for being a theist an educated guess. It was not random, because he backed it with a viable concept. I've yet to see that from anyone else.

Quote by: pikatore No, I think I understood the word 'EVIDENCE' pretty damn well.

Your posts are getting increasingly incoherent.

Quote me where I said I have evidence for the impossibility for ascertaining the truth value of any god claim.

[Gods_Mercenary]

According to most defenitions there are three types of agnosticism, atheistic agnosticism, Which is doubt that thinks it more likely that God doesn't exist, theistic agnosticism, exactly the opposite, and apathetic agnosticism, agnosticism that isn't slanted either way. By these defenitions anyone who allows for the possiblity of God is agnostic or theistic.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Quote me where I said I have evidence for the impossibility for ascertaining the truth value of any god claim.

No problem.

Ok, if it's not evidence that brings you closer to the real answer, then what is it? I'm not into gambling. I prefer to put confidence in claims that I have evidence for.

You therefore imply that you have evidence for your argument.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary According to most defenitions there are three types of agnosticism, atheistic agnosticism, Which is doubt that thinks it more likely that God doesn't exist, theistic agnosticism, exactly the opposite, and apathetic agnosticism, agnosticism that isn't slanted either way. By these defenitions anyone who allows for the possiblity of God is agnostic or theistic.

How about negative atheism? The absence of belief in deities?

[Gods_Mercenary]

Do you deny that a God can exist? or do you just not care to muse about things that have no proof?

[pikatore]

And by the way kama, if your argument is 'i dont know', as opposed to 'there isnt a way to find out either way', then you dont have an argument. you are an apathetic agnostic, which means you dont care either way. that doesnt make your argument more logical than mine, however.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: pikatore No problem. You therefore imply that you have evidence for your argument.

No, I was reacting to Lullaby Chainer, who had said that picking a miscellaneous position would somehow further yourself on the journey to the "real answer".

[rez]

the universe is governed by a set of rational laws that can be discovered and understood.

1) There is a universe. 2) We want to explain it. 3) There are many competing explanations. 4) What criterion will we use to prefer one explanation over another? 5) Once we have made a choice should we stick with it? For science 4) - It is how well it does at explaining and predicting reality. For religion 4) - It is a silly question. You must only prefer the explanation of your religion. For science 5) - You change when a better explanation comes along as per the criterion used in 4)

There is nothing absolute about any of this. This is how science works.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary Do you deny that a God can exist? or do you just not care to muse about things that have no proof?

I never denied that a god CAN exist. I am saying that I am assuming that a god DOESNT exist, due to a lack of evidence backing the positive claim that a god (or gods) exist.

My response is much the same as how i'd responsd to the claim the unicorns exist.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Well, maybe it does, after all, hes arguing that the only logical stance on an unknown is "I don't know"

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 No, I was reacting to Lullaby Chainer, who had said that picking a miscellaneous position would somehow further yourself on the journey to the "real answer".

Which would make your position just as 'miscellaneous', because it has no evidence to support it.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: pikatore And by the way kama, if your argument is 'i dont know', as opposed to 'there isnt a way to find out either way', then you dont have an argument. you are an apathetic agnostic, which means you dont care either way. that doesnt make your argument more logical than mine, however.

1) That makes me a non-practicing agnostic.

2) Yes, I'm afraid that my argument is more logical, because all you've done so far is challenge a definition and misrepresented me.