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

[rez]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Nope, I'm waiting for the atheists to acknowledge that their stance requires just as much faith as general theism.

and, to you, bald is a hair color. I do not hope or have confidence that god does not exist. I, as an atheist, am not anti-god.

[Kamehameha34]

Wit isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card.

[rez]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Wit isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card.

faith requires hope or confidence in something that is not provable. You are having a hard time with the fact that I lack belief in gods. I wonder if it has something to do with the fact that you..."don't know".

[Kamehameha34]

faith requires hope or confidence in something that is not provable.

No. Faith is belief in something without evidence. It has nothing to do with hope.

Get over that molehill and I'll address the rest.

[rez]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 No. Faith is belief in something without evidence. It has nothing to do with hope. Get over that molehill and I'll address the rest.

And in that context, what does belief mean? What does it mean to believe in something without evidence?

Quote by: The Movie "Pi" "Ill be honest about it. It is not atheists who get stuck in my craw, but agnostics. Doubt is useful for a while. We must all pass through the garden of Gethsemane. If Christ played with doubt, so must we. If Christ spent an anguished night in prayer, if He burst out from the Cross saying, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" then surely we are also permitted doubt. But we must move on. To choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation."

Who coined the term "agnostic" anyway?

[Kamehameha34]

And in that context, what does belief mean? What does it mean to believe in something without evidence?

What "belief" always means. To hold something to be true.

"Ill be honest about it. It is not atheists who get stuck in my craw, but agnostics. Doubt is useful for a while. We must all pass through the garden of Gethsemane. If Christ played with doubt, so must we. If Christ spent an anguished night in prayer, if He burst out from the Cross saying, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" then surely we are also permitted doubt. But we must move on. To choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation."

I can quote idiotic viewpoints from cinema, aswell.

Quote by: Arthur Susan: A real woman could stop you from drinking. Arthur: It'd have to be a real BIG woman!

What's your point? Are you going to defend your argument, or hide behind a convenient movie quote?

[rez]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 What "belief" always means. To hold something to be true.

How about making an estimate? or a prediction?

I believe the Bears will win the super bowl...I think it is true without any sort of evidence. I hope that the bears will win the super bowl, or I have confidence that the bears will win the super bowl.

Quote by: Kamehameha I can quote idiotic viewpoints from cinema, aswell.

you were suppose to comment on it.

(1) The word Agnostic (Greek a, privative + gnostikós "knowing") was coined by Professor Huxley in 1869 to describe the mental attitude of one who regarded as futile all attempts to know the reality corresponding to our ultimate scientific, philosophic, and religious ideas.

Huxley was also an atheist. The real question is "why should I believe in god if I do not know god"?


Edit to Add:

I can even compare your type of thought process in this silly debate..

"It's just as irrelevant as the debate between those who choose not to believe that there are invisible flying meatballs who live on earth and those who do."

But for some reason you ignore the fact that an atheist would not make it clear and known that god does not exist. I do not know if god does not exist, so I do not believe in god - it really is simple.

[rez]

I like Webster's definition of belief much better actually.

Quote by: Webster's Main Entry: be•lief Pronunciation: b&-'lEf Function: noun Etymology: Middle English beleave, probably alteration of Old English gelEafa, from ge-, associative prefix + lEafa; akin to Old English lyfan 1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing 2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group 3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence synonyms BELIEF, FAITH, CREDENCE, CREDIT mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance. BELIEF may or may not imply certitude in the believer <my belief that I had caught all the errors>. FAITH almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof <an unshakable faith in God>. CREDENCE suggests intellectual assent without implying anything about grounds for assent <a theory now given credence by scientists>. CREDIT may imply assent on grounds other than direct proof <gave full credit to the statement of a reputable witness>. synonym see in addition OPINION

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: rez How about making an estimate? or a prediction? I believe the Bears will win the super bowl...I think it is true without any sort of evidence. I hope that the bears will win the super bowl, or I have confidence that the bears will win the super bowl.

That's still belief. Belief can be founded in evidence. When it isn't, it's faith.

Huxley was also an atheist. The real question is "why should I believe in god if I do not know god"?

That's an agnostic principle..

Agnostics aren't atheists. Weak atheists are agnostics.

I can even compare your type of thought process in this silly debate.. "It's just as irrelevant as the debate between those who choose not to believe that there are invisible flying meatballs who live on earth and those who do."

This makes no sense - and doesn't address my stance.

But for some reason you ignore the fact that an atheist would not make it clear and known that god does not exist. I do not know if god does not exist, so I do not believe in god - it really is simple.

Then you're a non-practicing agnostic.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: rez I like Webster's definition of belief much better actually.

And where does your citation contradict me?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Then you're a non-practicing agnostic.

Amusing. He continues to tell others that they are wrong in their own self identifications, while he obviously lacks the epistemological depth to understand the basic ideas being discussed here.

He claims that the being he calls god is "unfalsiable" yet continues to talk about "evidence" and "proof". If he understood the meaning of the word "unfalsifiable" he would know that any "unfalsifiable" concept cannot be addressed by proof or evidence. Only faith supports the unfalsifiable. If he clings to the possiblity of the existence of god, he does so only through faith, whether he wishes to aknowledge it or not.

[Kamehameha34]

Amusing. He continues to tell others that they are wrong in their own self identifications, while he obviously lacks the epistemological depth to understand the basic ideas being discussed here.

No, it's called an ability to read. I know the definition of "non-practicing agnostic".

If he clings to the possiblity of the existence of god, he does so only through faith, whether he wishes to aknowledge it or not.

That's a stupid thing to say. Saying that something doesn't contradict anything we know of the universe (ie "is possible") doesn't require any faith at all. There's no proof against god so, based on the evidence we have, the 'god' claim is perfectly possible.

Cite one piece of evidence, just one, that contradicts the "god" claim.

If you can't, don't bother responding. The next post of yours I validate with a response will have a reference in it. Whether or not this ever comes to pass is up to you.

He claims that the being he calls god is "unfalsiable" yet continues to talk about "evidence" and "proof".

You mean the fact that there is none?

You're done. I've tried to explain this enough.

[RickSp]

So I see you still don't know the definitions of the words you use. You were the one who claimed that god was "unfalsifiable." I agree with you, even if you obviously don't understand the implications of what you assert.

If you understood the meaning of the word you would undestand that anything unfalisifiable is untestable, not just unproven but incapable of proof. It is a concept based entirely on faith.

Yet you persist in demanding "evidence" when you yourself claim, whether you can figure it out or not, that evidence is not applicable, that your god is unprovable, that god is indeed "unfalsifiable".

Your lack of understanding of your own argument is equal parts sad and funny.

[Kamehameha34]

Amazing. This isn't even a debate, it's "spot Rick's logical fallacy".

This week's episode features Rick, ignorant of the term "agnostic"'s definition, employing a straw man to apply miscellaneous theistic concepts to agnosticism.

[RickSp]

And once again, the best you can manage is an insult. I guess the ideas are too tough for you. A shame.

[Kamehameha34]

Mmmk, now you can say that a fourteen year-old refused to entertain your immaturity.

Don't post without an argument.

[rez]

ok first off, agnosticism is a philosophy that discusses the pursuit of knowledge. In the case of god, not one single human being knows if any god exists. However, theists are gnostic, in which they claim to know that god exists.

Weak and Strong atheism are bad terms. What you really mean is that there is agnostic atheists or gnostic atheists, however, you have failed miserably in providing evidence that a gnostic atheist actually exists.


Kamehameha, you are claiming that I know for a fact that god does not exist, in which case I would really be an anti-theist. The point is, no a-theist tells someone there is no god. What an atheist will do, is point out that a double standard exists between those who hold beliefs in different gods. I will use the thread "the Bible vs Quran" in which two supernatural religions are fighting each other to prove which religion is the "truth". The fact is, both supernatural religions abide by constructs that are not based on facts, but emotion.

me and RickSP are a-theists. We are without theism, just like someone can be a-political (without politics) or a-sexual (without sexuality).

You could say The_Genius is an atheist because he lacks belief in Zues or Thor.

I have work, I will be back in 5 minutes. Chew on that for alittle bit.

[Kamehameha34]

Weak and Strong atheism are bad terms. What you really mean is that there is agnostic atheists or gnostic atheists,

That's what weak and strong atheism is.

"Underwear is a bad term. What you really mean is skivvies."

however, you have failed miserably in providing evidence that a gnostic atheist actually exists.

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

Kamehameha, you are claiming that I know for a fact that god does not exist

Quote where I say that.

What an atheist will do, is point out that a double standard exists between those who hold beliefs in different gods. I will use the thread "the Bible vs Quran" in which two supernatural religions are fighting each other to prove which religion is the "truth". The fact is, both supernatural religions abide by constructs that are not based on facts, but emotion.

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

[Jagged]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 You mean the fact that there is none? You're done. I've tried to explain this enough.

Rick is trying to say that he believes that citing 'Argumentum Ad Ignorantium' doesn't apply to any unfalsifiable concept because such an appeal requires the ability for a case to be either proven true or false. Citing Argumentum Ad Ignorantium is thus redundant in this case. You obviously disagree on the basis that Argumentum Ad Ignorantium can simply be cited regardless of the unique situation.
--
I (not speaking for all atheists), as an "atheist", will acknowledge that the acceptance does take a leap of faith; however, it takes a "smaller" leap of faith than a religion does. This is because there exists definitive information that highly contrasts and invalidates ideas previously taken to be true that are often clustered with the fundamental belief in a God. The magnitude of proven difference suggests that the source of these ideas, which include the idea of God, is spurious. Its not an "airtight" train of thought, but its a train of thought nonetheless. Religion lacks this.
--

Question: Seriously, what is the definition of a non-practicing agnostic? I can understand it from two different perspectives.

And, guys, i thought we didn't like ignorant people. You know- the ones you say everybody else is wrong no matter what. I thought we simply didn't deal with them as rational debaters. We really can make fun of Kam. He holds the stance as an 'absolute logicist' (absolutist, if you will) on everything, especially the things which i thought everybody holds personally.

Lets make dialogs!

Me: Hey Kam! Do you believe that pink unicorns that can survive in incredibly cold temperatures live on Pluto? I definitely don't.
Kam: Ad Ignorantium! Ad Ignorantium! How ridiculous of you to suppose such a thing.

[Kamehameha34]

Rick is trying to say that he believes that citing 'Argumentum Ad Ignorantium' doesn't apply to any unfalsifiable concept because such an appeal requires the ability for a case to be either proven true or false.

Falsifiability has nothing to do with logical soundness. Claims don't default to false. They default to unknown. Stop beating a dead horse.

This is because there exists definitive information that highly contrasts and invalidates ideas previously taken to be true that are often clustered with the fundamental belief in a God.

I'm not talking about ideas that are "clustered in" with god. They are irrelevant to the argument.

Question: Seriously, what is the definition of a non-practicing agnostic? I can understand it from two different perspectives.

Someone who thinks that there is no evidence for or against a god, and that it's meaningless to care.

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.