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

[Jagged]

We have faith. You do not. That is the only difference which you are pointing out. Faith is rational, for nobody lives in complete reality. You live in the false reality in which you think you are always right, for example.

I don't understand why people are getting so hyped up. It is easy to see that all kam is doing is saying "you have faith, i dont" in an incredibly complicated way which makes people get angry. Simple agnosticsm does not require or is not supposed to require this much attention. He is just trying to be controversial somehow in a non controversial topic. Lets just not post in this stupid thing.

[Kamehameha34]

Faith is rational, for nobody lives in complete reality.

Faith is synonomous with irrational. It means belief without evidence.

You live in the false reality in which you think you are always right, for example.

Speaking of unproven claims..

Simple agnosticsm does not require or is not supposed to require this much attention. He is just trying to be controversial somehow in a non controversial topic. Lets just not post in this stupid thing.

Agnosticism does require attention, being that it's the only logical stance.

And I would be very pleased if you didn't post :)

Less bullish trolling.

[Gods_Mercenary]

I do not prefer to call myself an agnostic because it is more rational (although it often is), I prefer it because I feel it is arrogant to claim almost any absolute for all of existance. I might like to muse about god(s), but I'm not gonna say that I think my ideas are any more true than other's

[nilan3000]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary I do not prefer to call myself an agnostic because it is more rational (although it often is), I prefer it because I feel it is arrogant to claim almost any absolute for all of existance. I might like to muse about god(s), but I'm not gonna say that I think my ideas are any more true than other's

*Imitating Kame*: WRONG! That is unfalsifiable! Agnosticism is the only logical stance!

Just kidding....

[Jagged]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Agnosticism does require attention, being that it's the only logical stance.

Your definition of "logical" = Faithless. Thats all you are arguing, in unnecessarily complex terms.

Although the belief in an unproven something may be illogical in theory, faith gives people hope. Hope is a nice thing to have and sometimes makes life worth living. Having a life worth living is a good thing. It is logical to want a good thing. Therefore there is logic behind holding faith, not in the faith itself.

[Kamehameha34]

I'm not getting into the ethics behind faith. Besides, if someone can't motivate themselves without guarenteed rewards in the afterlife, their lives aren't very appreciated.

[Fonceai]

And what exactly do you know about life?

I'm sure you've witnessed the miracle of the birth of your own child, or the tragedy of their death, and been so overwhelmed with emotion that you feel it goes beyond what you see?

Or perhaps your spouse has been severely hurt, once, and you caught yourself praying?

What about the time you just really needed someone to talk to because you were having a life crisis and your church community was there to support you for no other reason than a shared belief in certain ethics?

There's more to faith than wanting to get in good for the afterlife.

[pubmanager]

Having posted my two cents I have followed this thread with some interest.I have no vested interest in the argument for/against theism as I'm distinctly apathetic, I am interested in debate and discussion and the validity of being undecided.

Kamehameha34 I have rarely seen what I can only describe as "militant agnosticism" before.

You titled this thread:

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

A simple question, with a simple answer:

Everybody understands, so no, it's not difficult.

The problem is not understanding, it is that you seem to want parties on both sides of the debate to recognise the superiority of your position, relative to theirs; describing agnosticism as "the only logical stance".

I think that the problem of your apparently feeling misunderstood and put upon is not the fault of others but arises from the way in which you have chosen to frame the debate and the way you present your case.

If I follow your reasoning correctly your argument can be represented as such:

If we examine the question of whether God (creator) exists there are two possible correct positions:


There is a god OR there is not a god.

The universe contains infinite possibilities so both are logically possible.

There is not conclusive prove that God does not exist.

There is not conclusive prove that the universe contains finite possibilities.

Therefore the possibility of God exists.

I think, to borrow one of your own phrases, this constitutes nothing more than "philosophical masturbation".

Your argument maybe "sound" [in that if all the premises are true then the conclusion stands] however it is only "valid" if the premises are correct. Being as how your premises are simply veiled assertions and not facts, your argument lacks validity and therefore is not logical.

Moreover, my fundamental point is that a stance of "I don't know" can be an intellectually honest and well considered personal stance that can be respected and understood by other debaters.

"YOU DON'T KNOW SO SHUT UP!" which, I feel is a more accurate way to describe your position, seems (to be polite) a little childish.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Fonceai And what exactly do you know about life? I'm sure you've witnessed the miracle of the birth of your own child, or the tragedy of their death, and been so overwhelmed with emotion that you feel it goes beyond what you see? Or perhaps your spouse has been severely hurt, once, and you caught yourself praying? What about the time you just really needed someone to talk to because you were having a life crisis and your church community was there to support you for no other reason than a shared belief in certain ethics? There's more to faith than wanting to get in good for the afterlife.

Sadly, our emotional need for someone to guide our lives into euphoria don't make a universal creator any more probable. I'm not going to try and invalidate faith as anything other than logical.

Quote by: pubmanager The problem is not understanding, it is that you seem to want parties on both sides of the debate to recognise the superiority of your position, relative to theirs; describing agnosticism as "the only logical stance".

Nope, I'm waiting for the atheists to acknowledge that their stance requires just as much faith as general theism.

Your argument maybe "sound" [in that if all the premises are true then the conclusion stands] however it is only "valid" if the premises are correct. Being as how your premises are simply veiled assertions and not facts, your argument lacks validity and therefore is not logical.

No, it's not logical as an argument for theism.

I've been asserting that, because all premises regarding the possibility of a god are unknown, the existence of a god is unknown. Theism =/= agnosticism. You made the same mistake that I've seen several times throughout the duration of this thread :eek:

"YOU DON'T KNOW SO SHUT UP!" which, I feel is a more accurate way to describe your position, seems (to be polite) a little childish.

Mmmk, so from now on I'll entertain atheistic faith as evidence. There's rationality, for ya :rolleyes:

[Jagged]

Kam, basically everybody is criticizing that you don't care if there is a god or not. In fact, it is in your best interest for that information not to be revealed so you can claim you have the most logical "stance." Everybody else on this forum takes this debate personally; you only selfishly care about how you come across to others. You say "i dont care what my stance contributes," but, in reality, everybody else does.

You are not saying "i don't know;" you are saying "You are all wrong." Additionally, the way in which you are portraying your ideas makes you sound as arrogant as a devout Catholic who believes everybody else is going to hell no matter what.

[Kamehameha34]

Mmmk, that's it?

I was hoping I'd get more out of you than how you think I "sound". Oh well.

[Gods_Mercenary]

as arrogant as a devout Catholic who believes everybody else is going to hell no matter what.

Not very devout, considering they don't even know what the church teaches.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: nilan3000 *Imitating Kame*: WRONG! That is unfalsifiable! Agnosticism is the only logical stance! Just kidding....

Well, yah, that's the thing, I have no problem if your personal experience causes you to be sure one way or another (it hasn't for me) But don't start claiming you have the truth or base your judgement of me on your personal beliefs. Your morals, maybe, but your beliefs are no more relevant than anyone else's.

[nilan3000]

Yes, but we agnostics also have to understand that atheists can justify their viewpoint too, its just that our perspective of the solution is different from theirs. Agnosticism is to not be sure of what the truth is. How can we tell people that they are wrong when we dont know what the truth is?

Scenario 1:
Atheist: I dont think God exists.

Agnostic: NO! YOU ARE WRONG!

Atheist: How do you know I am wrong? Do you have the right answer then?

Agnostic: No....all I know is you are wrong.

Sounds narrow minded doesnt it. What it should be is:

Scenario 2:
Atheist: I dont think God exists.

Agnostic: Oh ok. I dont know what the answer is since there are so many possibilities open.

Atheist: Cool. Beer?

Agnostic: Cheers m8.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Humans will make dogma out of not having a dogma. Sort of like having an anarchist party, a party that believes there should be no parties.

[Jagged]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Mmmk, that's it? I was hoping I'd get more out of you than how you think I "sound". Oh well.

I was hoping to get more than Argumentum Ad Hominem and plain ignorance out of you.

[Kamehameha34]

This isn't a "let's throw as many words as we can" game. I didn't attack you. I attacked your debating style. Read up on your fallacies before you start trying to use them to your advantage - or you'll make yourself look foolish again.

[Kamehameha34]

Nilan

I have a feeling that you don't understand my stance. I don't crucify people for "thinking" no god exists. I crucify them for trying to push their unevidenced belief into logicality

[Jagged]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 This isn't a "let's throw as many words as we can" game. I didn't attack you. I attacked your debating style. Read up on your fallacies before you start trying to use them to your advantage - or you'll make yourself look foolish again.

Woah sorry, i didn't know the sarcastic statement "I was hoping I'd get more out of you than..." or blatantly telling me that i shouldn't post in this thread while ignoring my arguments, a.k.a. stating my opinion is worthless isn't personally attacking me. My bad.

Anyways, speaking of the "lets throw as many words as we can" game, you are the only one i have ever seen to use the useless classic appeals as if everybody knows them on this forum. They are ostentatious in themselves.

[Kamehameha34]

Woah sorry, i didn't know the sarcastic statement "I was hoping I'd get more out of you than..." or blatantly telling me that i shouldn't post in this thread while ignoring my arguments, a.k.a. stating my opinion is worthless isn't personally attacking me. My bad.

I didn't say that your opinion was worthless. I said that your argument was irrelevant. It was, so I don't see why you're complaining.

Anyways, speaking of the "lets throw as many words as we can" game, you are the only one i have ever seen to use the useless classic appeals as if everybody knows them on this forum. They are ostentatious in themselves.

Glad I get to bear witness of your complete divorce from logic and rational though.