Agnosticism

[RockAndRoll]

I am a ‘devout’ agnostic, so I’m here to put forth an argument for it, or perhaps what should really be called a criticism of atheism and theism alike. (Yeah, this is extremely long, meh)

The first attack on agnosticism which I’m forced to counter is the idea that it does not actually exist. As far as I can tell there are two main arguments which support the idea that agnosticism does not exist. The first argument goes that if you do not believe in god you must therefore believe there is no god, and tries to apply the law of the excluded middle. The second is that there is no difference between an agnostic and an atheist because neither believes in god so all distinctions are for political correctness at best.

The former falls victim to the fallacy of the excluded middle, which is essentially misapplication of the law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma . There are in fact more than two options. To say that not to believe god exists means to believe there is no god is implying that there is no such thing as lack of a belief in this case. For to admit that there is such thing as complete lack of belief is to admit a third option and therefore concede that the law of the excluded middle does not apply.

So then from this argument it must follow that in this case there can be no lack of belief. The criticism most easily leveled against this view is that inanimate objects clearly have a complete lack of belief. The response to which is generally that although inanimate objects may hold no beliefs people cannot withhold judgment. This however is once again demonstrably false. Every time you’ve genuinely not known the answer to a question you’ve essentially been withholding judgment. Just as if I were to ask you what the value of x is you would most likely not jump to any conclusion. The response to this typically is that withholding judgment is only possibly in situations where there are multiple options. Once again however that is to suggest that were I to ask you if the value of x is 3 or 4 you would reach with some degree of certitude a conclusion. Although it may be easy to pick an answer as nothing rides on you getting the answer correct I would imagine that you would admit to not knowing the answer. This demonstrates that someone can indeed be agnostic. Not believing in one option does not mean belief in the other.

As for the criticism that agnostic really is no different from atheism this, though true for the most part is not entirely correct. Both agnostics and atheists lack belief in god and thus tend not to spend there time at church services etc. however it should be admitted that no one who was convinced that god does not exist would do something such as write this essay in defense of not making any decision. Likewise no agnostic would write an essay about how they know god doesn’t exist. Though in almost all aspects an agnostic would be completely indistinguishable from an atheist this is not to say they are entirely the same or that it is meaningless to call oneself an agnostic.

Now that I’ve spent way more time than should be necessary (but from my various arguments on this board seems to be) showing that agnosticism does actually exist I’m going to present some of my arguments against atheism and theism alike.

Lets start with atheism. Many atheists seem to pride themselves in being the ‘rational ones’, but even beyond the angsty teen atheists many of their arguments fall short of actually making them worthy of that title. One common argument is that there is no evidence for god and thus it is rational to believe there is no god. This however is a logical fallacy, it really is argument from ignorance, or sometimes argument from personal incredulity. It does not follow that because there is no evidence for god we can deduce that god does not exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Another argument I’ve seen made for agnosticism is that the conjunction fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_fallacy ) makes it more likely. This is however untrue. In the same way that in ‘the universe was created by God’ “by God” is an extra term and thus makes the statement less likely in ‘the universe popped into existence on it’s own’ “on it’s own” is an extra term and makes the statement less likely. The conjunction fallacy applies equally to theists and atheists and can only really be used to support agnosticism. Although the argument is sometimes a good critique of a theist’s argument it does not support atheism.

There have been however several well done and completely correct criticism of certain conflicting ideas of God, people have often shown how certain beliefs about god cannot be held simultaneously or how certain conceptions of god are impossible, often through reduction ad absurdum arguments. This may disprove the existence of certain specific gods these arguments do not disprove the general idea of God. Just as disproving one religion would not disprove the others neither does disproving one particular conception of God disprove the whole idea.

As for theism there are also arguments made on rational grounds (which once again tend to be poorly reasoned) but equally there are irrationalist arguments. Arguments about how people can feel God’s presence, or how they simply know god exists. These types of arguments however are completely useless as they have failed to demonstrate anything and are at best appeals to emotion, another fallacious form of argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion these arguments often appeal to the sense of the universe being something special, but they lack any actual substance.

One of the retorts used to criticisms like this (and to many other rational criticisms of theist beliefs) is that God is beyond logic. That logic is insufficient when it comes to matters of God because God is beyond that. However if this is your train of thought you’ll at the very least need to rethink it in any debate because debates are based on logic. The fact remains that no logical argument for the existence of god has been presented. The fact remains that the argument is about as convincing as “God exists” is. It’s hardly adequate.

In a similar vein theists often speak of personal proof, some proof of god existence which they cannot share with others, such as some experience they had. I however certainly don’t have any of this ‘personal proof’ and any personal proof which you may have is completely useless to me. Though I would encourage you strongly to ask yourself whether this personal proof is actually proof, and not once again some type of appeal to emotion, if you do genuinely have this proof good for you, but I don’t so I’m stuck as an agnostic.

Other support for the idea that there is a god however comes from how special our universe is. The order of the universe and how amazing it all seems to be is taken to be proof of God’s existence. It is argued that it is so great and orderly that it must have been created by God. Once again this is among other things attempt to appeal to emotion. However there are other things at play in this arguments. There is the idea that such complex things, such special things must be designed by something. As they say ‘just as you will not paint the Mona Lisa by throwing paint at the canvas our universe could not be created at random, or at least likely wasn’t.

The logic is that complex, orderly things are designed, so then our universe must be. The problem with this is that the entirely argument is flimsy due to the fact that there really is no proof that something complex must have been designed.

Generally when making this argument people point out things like that if we see a building or a nice painting etc we do not assume it happened by chance, we figure someone deliberately made it to be so. However it is our lack of experience of happenstance paintings and unplanned buildings which makes us come to those conclusions, which then seem reasonable. Out of the thousands of paintings and buildings we may have seen none have been a product of chance, so we assume the next one to be no difference. However the same cannot be done for the universe, as we have only seen this one and so have nothing to compare it to. The universe in it’s being unique to us cannot even really be made subject to an argument of induction. Furthermore despite the awesomeness of the universe it’s hardly a small and tidy place who’s main purpose seems to be to contain life. Our view of the universe has changed radically since the dark ages (as it will most likely change again) and doesn’t exactly seem tailored to fit us as it was supposed back then.

When you get down to it the problem really is that there is no reason that our universe should not be or could not be a product of something other than God, no matter how special it may seem. Arguments to the contrary tend to be either non-sequitors or appeals to emotion.

I’m sure I’ve left out a million and one arguments that people have made in favour of both sides, but I’m going to conclude here for now anyways.

[RockAndRoll]

What it comes down to is this you can’t really make a valid argument off of no proof for either side, and in this case that is exactly what people are trying to do. Atheists tend to believe they have taken the rational side and while some of the arguments seem logical they are ultimately flawed, we just have no way of discounting the concept of God, as things stand it cannot be done. Although on a practical level atheism makes sense on a philosophical level it falls short. Theism, likewise, fails to put forth any truly convincing arguments, something that many theists do not deny, but argue are not necessary. For me however they are, despite any personal proof you may have I don’t have it, and for everyone theist who tells me all I need to do is search within myself (or without myself depending on their take) I tell you I have, and not as skeptic as you may assume I did, I was once Catholic. Just as when I was a little kid and I would search for some hidden power deep within me I searched for God, but never was there truly anything there. I have no proof, so I cannot believe.

I hope I’ve actually managed to sway some people’s opinions, or managed to make some people reconsider some things, We'll see I suppose.

[griftadan]

i used to be and then i realized that the logic of "you cna't prove it doesn't exist" was bunk so i just became atheist.

[Iskandar]

Great thread! I did read every single word of it, honestly.

The first argument goes that if you do not believe in god you must therefore believe there is no god,
That's an atrocious argument! It's utter fallacy.

[RockAndRoll]

i used to be and then i realized that the logic of "you cna't prove it doesn't exist" was bunk so i just became atheist.
It's not though that's the thing. Practically speaking I'm an atheist (other than the essays and long drawn out arguments I suppose:p), but philosophically speaking I'm agnostic because in this case the best we can do really is "I don't know".

[RockAndRoll]

Great thread! I did read every single word of it, honestly.


That's an atrocious argument! It's utter fallacy.
Thank you. Honestly though, I've heard that argument so many times.

[Iskandar]

Thank you. Honestly though, I've heard that argument so many times.
It's awful! There is no logical reason to suppose that withholding judgement on something implies you believe it doesn't exist.

[RockAndRoll]

Hey, you don't need to tell me that. :p

[Riva]

Good argument. I read it, and even got a tiny bit sidetracked on the Wiki articles. I'm not going to defend myself, I'm an atheist because it fits easiest to my hand. However, I do agree that every side, including the agnostics, have the annoying side which is out to prove their point.

[Iskandar]

Even though I'm an atheist, I do admit the logical superiority of agnosticism .. at least, if the argument takes place in a vacuum.

[B Radd]

i dun know wut u guys r talkin bout and stuff but i just want to make a comment about athiests and agnostics. i myself dont think its possible for there to be an athiest. if you think about it, they have a god. like some scientists believe that whole nebula theory, well then the nebula is their god, and those who believe in evolution, well nature is their god. so someone who says they are athiest, i believe are agnostic

[Riva]

i dun know wut u guys r talkin bout and stuff but i just want to make a comment about athiests and agnostics. i myself dont think its possible for there to be an athiest. if you think about it, they have a god. like some scientists believe that whole nebula theory, well then the nebula is their god, and those who believe in evolution, well nature is their god. so someone who says they are athiest, i believe are agnostic

Define god. I don't worship nature, since I'm not a Druid/Pantheist/Wiccan or a Pagan in general.

[RockAndRoll]

Good argument. I read it, and even got a tiny bit sidetracked on the Wiki articles. I'm not going to defend myself, I'm an atheist because it fits easiest to my hand. However, I do agree that every side, including the agnostics, have the annoying side which is out to prove their point.
Thank you. I thought the Wiki articales were a good aid. I guess I'd be the annoying agnostic in this case :p. I'd agree every side does have the annoying type, though I'd say least of all agnostics due to the fact many of them are just generally unsure. That could just be my experience though, and afterall I guess I'm leaving myself out of that :p.

i dun know wut u guys r talkin bout and stuff but i just want to make a comment about athiests and agnostics. i myself dont think its possible for there to be an athiest. if you think about it, they have a god. like some scientists believe that whole nebula theory, well then the nebula is their god, and those who believe in evolution, well nature is their god. so someone who says they are athiest, i believe are agnostic
That would make them theist. Regardless those beliefs are all so incredibly and radically different in every way that to call the believers all theists is meaningless and does nothing but render several words in the english language completely useless.

[Futue te Ipsum]

I'm an apatheist.

[Atomic Rain]

Agnosticism; there's nothing wrong with it, it just has no place in discussion. It's schroedingers religion, without the attatched maths.

[BassRevelation1029]

I have some kind of feeling that this was directed towards an old argument of mine, so I'll add my two cents

The former falls victim to the fallacy of the excluded middle, which is essentially misapplication of the law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma .
just for future refrences, I wouldnt recommend using wikipedia as a source. Not to mention just anyone can put anything on there, this article was copied directly from atheist.com

Just as if I were to ask you what the value of x is you would most likely not jump to any conclusion....Not believing in one option does not mean belief in the other.
Let me clear something up: an atheist denies the existence of God outright while the agnostic claims he does not have enough evidence to make a judgment. With this, if God can be accepted/denied, He is defined. In this case, we're not asking, "what is the value of x" but rather "do you believe in x?" Had i asked that question, there would be some possibilities: yes and no. One can say "I dont know," however you cannot hold both ideas. Thats like saying x = not x.

I think 'agnostic' is leaning one way or the other, but it seems that its the stance so commonly taken to be on the safe side-sort of that like the creative evolutionist.

As for the criticism that agnostic really is no different from atheism... Though in almost all aspects an agnostic would be completely indistinguishable from an atheist this is not to say they are entirely the same or that it is meaningless to call oneself an agnostic.
Heres a similarity ive picked up in my own experiences talking to them: neither one of them is willing to accept evidence. As you've heard billions of times before, i believe evidence is subjective, and until one puts on the glasses of one who believes in God, they wont see any evidence. This is another problem i have with agnosticism. They claim they have no evidence, but have they really looked? I say believing is seeing, not the other way.
Arguments about how people can feel God’s presence, or how they simply know god exists. These types of arguments however are completely useless...
This argument should be left out of debates if one is trying to convince. However, this is the "proof" for the person arguing. Though This obviously wont convince the other person one bit, it does have substance for the one arguing. We cannot assume because it cannot be explained and is without substance in the debate, it is therefore without substance period and is not real.
That logic is insufficient when it comes to matters of God because God is beyond that. However if this is your train of thought you’ll at the very least need to rethink it in any debate because debates are based on logic.
but you are bringing in an element of FAITH into the debate, so of course you're gonna talk about personal beliefs.

The fact remains that no logical argument for the existence of god has been presented.
this isnt even a fact.

In a similar vein theists often speak of personal proof, some proof of god existence which they cannot share with others, such as some experience they had. I however certainly don’t have any of this ‘personal proof’ and any personal proof which you may have is completely useless to me.
I no longer argue for the existence of God on this board, seeing how people just wont see. Nevertheless, im still asked "why do YOU believe in God?" Something like that i would rather leave out, but it seems as if im driven to answer the question. If it does nothing for one, so be it, but my goal isnt to prove God's existence.
When you get down to it the problem really is that there is no reason that our universe should not be or could not be a product of something other than God, no matter how special it may seem. Arguments to the contrary tend to be either non-sequitors or appeals to emotion.
take a look into Aquinas's argument. Its not one I live by or even hold highly, but you should get a look at it.

[CabbageStabbage]

It's not though that's the thing. Practically speaking I'm an atheist (other than the essays and long drawn out arguments I suppose:p), but philosophically speaking I'm agnostic because in this case the best we can do really is "I don't know".

Same here. Philosophically I am agnostic. I don't think the concept of a god has been defined properly - look at the many contradictions about it.

Also, if a single god created the universe, why should we worship or acknowledge it? Since he created everything, why would prayer be the only way of worshipping?

Also, you could say that the universe was created by 2 or more gods, which is why there is all this suffering and chaos and whatever. Of course, who created the gods?

[Against Miik!]

I would consider myself an agnostic, but I think it's safe to say the average person doesn't really know what that is. And I REALLY don't want to say i'm an athiest, because, well, i'm not, and also you end up getting crap from all sides.

But as i've gotten older, i've really come to realize that there is absolutely nothing behind this whole religion thing. Some of the craziest most intolerant people I know or have seen, personally or say, on the political scene, are religous. Our own president is trying to say many of his actions have been handed down from God. I mean, what the hell is that? We see corruption in the church, and it seems that they are just making things up as they go along. The Catholic church gets rid of purgatory. I mean, did nobody catch this? Either it exists or it does not. What if we were just told someday that Asia actually doesn't exist? It's the same thing, except we know Asia is actually there. In the Buddhist religion also, they generally outlaw television for pleasurable purposes, but somehow, through some divine intervention, its o.k. for Buddhist to watch the World Cup. Well that makes sense.

It's not so much that I need proof of God's existance. If everybody had just stfu, I probably would have continue a 100% blind faith in God. However, everywhere I look, the people who are susposed to strengthen our faith are doing everything possible to disprove a higher power.

[Herbert]

You know what I think? (this isn't aimed at anyone or attacking anyone) I think people need to drop the labels. There are too many beliefs and morals floating around people to put into one group. I believe it's another way of making people channel their beliefs into something so black and white.

I believe so many different things. I don't believe there is a God... but I think He exists. You can't deny that. Every single person that believes in God has made him exist. Even if he just represents a common belief. Even if he is just an answer to the unanswerable. He is definitely something... I just don't know what. I have no idea if there is a 'higher authority' and to be honest I don't care. I'll live my life a day at a time- even if we can prove this authority exists or not will not change hpw we live our lives. We will still live and we will still die. I also believe in karma, and that things happen for a reason.

And I believe that an explanation of my beliefs like that is much more fulfilling and more representative of me than just one word.


Hell that was off topic but meh.

[Der Übermensch]

i dun know wut u guys r talkin bout and stuff but i just want to make a comment about athiests and agnostics. i myself dont think its possible for there to be an athiest. if you think about it, they have a god. like some scientists believe that whole nebula theory, well then the nebula is their god, and those who believe in evolution, well nature is their god. so someone who says they are athiest, i believe are agnostic

To paraphrase a quote brought up in the other thread, you are an atheist as well. There are a million gods you don't believe exist for one reason or another... Atheists just don't believe in a million and one gods...

[sjada]

I'm a freethinker, I don't define myself as agnostic but it fits with my beliefs. People need to learn to think for themselves and see more than the black and white sides of every argument.

[RockAndRoll]

Agnosticism; there's nothing wrong with it, it just has no place in discussion. It's schroedingers religion, without the attatched maths.
Unless it is the discussion.

I have some kind of feeling that this was directed towards an old argument of mine, so I'll add my two cents

haha, not completely off. There are definitely major parts which were inspired by arguments I've had with you, but it's not technically directed specifically to you. :p

just for future refrences, I wouldnt recommend using wikipedia as a source. Not to mention just anyone can put anything on there, this article was copied directly from atheist.com
Wikipedia is an easily accesible, well organised and concise source which I feel backed up my points fairly well.

Yes, it is open source and can be edited by anyone but at the same time tends to have fairly impressive security and scrutiny measures. Despite where that article may have been taken from my point stands, and I feel the article is a good aid.


Let me clear something up: an atheist denies the existence of God outright while the agnostic claims he does not have enough evidence to make a judgment. With this, if God can be accepted/denied, He is defined. In this case, we're not asking, "what is the value of x" but rather "do you believe in x?" Had i asked that question, there would be some possibilities: yes and no. One can say "I dont know," however you cannot hold both ideas. Thats like saying x = not x.

I think 'agnostic' is leaning one way or the other, but it seems that its the stance so commonly taken to be on the safe side-sort of that like the creative evolutionist.
Ya, you can't hold both, but you can hold neither, and that's what an agnostic does. I believe I dealt with all the arguments for that stance fairly thouroughly though and provided sufficient proof that the stance is faulty. I included examples with people making a decision with only 2 options, I don't think there are anymore reasnoable requests that should be met.

Heres a similarity ive picked up in my own experiences talking to them: neither one of them is willing to accept evidence. As you've heard billions of times before, i believe evidence is subjective, and until one puts on the glasses of one who believes in God, they wont see any evidence. This is another problem i have with agnosticism. They claim they have no evidence, but have they really looked? I say believing is seeing, not the other way.
:lol: I don't know about you but I can't help but notice how bias this is. Sure there are a good number of agnostics and atheists who won't accept evidence, but that similarity extends to pretty much every belief (including theists). But seriously as I said in my first (or perhaps technically second) post I did look, I used to be catholic, I used to believe in god, I did look! I did!
Besides how can you rail on agnostics and atheists for no accepting evidence when you believe believe is seeing, you might as well say "When the facts don't fit your belief, change the facts". It's the epitome of hypocrisy.

This argument should be left out of debates if one is trying to convince. However, this is the "proof" for the person arguing. Though This obviously wont convince the other person one bit, it does have substance for the one arguing. We cannot assume because it cannot be explained and is without substance in the debate, it is therefore without substance period and is not real.
I know that and I've actually defended siva and his personal proof before for that very reason. However if you'll look at what I wrote you'll realise I talked about it as being useless in argument, which it is.

but you are bringing in an element of FAITH into the debate, so of course you're gonna talk about personal beliefs.
I didn't bring faith into the debate. Nor am I concerned about people's personal beliefs bein part of the debate as that is what the debate is about, however if someone's personal beliefs have no basis in logic there is no way they will hold their ground in a debate as arguments must be logical or they are useless. Forget how much of a crackpot I may think that person is the fact remains trying to debate without using logic is like trying to play a game without rules, it just doesn't work, it's useless (beyond being an exercise in hilarity).

this isnt even a fact.
Woah! You really nailed me on that one!

I no longer argue for the existence of God on this board, seeing how people just wont see. Nevertheless, im still asked "why do YOU believe in God?" Something like that i would rather leave out, but it seems as if im driven to answer the question. If it does nothing for one, so be it, but my goal isnt to prove God's existence.
I may be guilty of asking people such things but at times (I'm not sure) it becomes a crucial element of another debate. You have to realise that anytime you base a belief which becomes part of an argument on god the very source of your argument will be attacked by questioning god.

As I've already said if you have personal proof good for you. I'm not going to believe you when you tell me that you do, and your personal proof is useless in any debate which attempts to convince someone else of God's existence but by the same token I can't usually disprove anybody's personal proof (but trust me I'm working on it :p). However when people start making other claims that the evidence for god exists and I just haven't considered it yet etc... I generally won't hesitate to go at it like a starving dog at meat.

take a look into Aquinas's argument. Its not one I live by or even hold highly, but you should get a look at it.
I haven't looked at Aquinas' arguments in detail, but I've looked at them briefly (and do intend to eventually look at them in more detail) and they really don't seem all that great to be honest.

[BassRevelation1029]

haha, not completely off. There are definitely major parts which were inspired by arguments I've had with you, but it's not technically directed specifically to you. :p
i KNEW it


Wikipedia is an easily accesible, well organised and concise source which I feel backed up my points fairly well.

Yes, it is open source and can be edited by anyone but at the same time tends to have fairly impressive security and scrutiny measures. Despite where that article may have been taken from my point stands, and I feel the article is a good aid.
it was taken from atheist.com!

Ya, you can't hold both, but you can hold neither, and that's what an agnostic does.
when a switch is on, its not off. When a switch is off, it is not on. Whats the difference between not off and on, or off and not on?
A person cannot truly hold no position on a yes or no issue. I accept the fact that some are just plain unsure, but i still think they are leaning one way or another. I know im going far off with this, but Christ said whoever's not for Him is against. If someone doesnt go in favor, they're against, no matter what. Thats the excluded middle, not to be mistaken with any fallacy.


:lol: I don't know about you but I can't help but notice how bias this is. Sure there are a good number of agnostics and atheists who won't accept evidence, but that similarity extends to pretty much every belief (including theists).
yes, quite opinionated. Thing is, I didnt come out of the womb believing. There are plenty who have gone a while without seeing evidence, but then started believing. You cant necessarily say the same for the other.

But seriously as I said in my first (or perhaps technically second) post I did look, I used to be catholic, I used to believe in god, I did look! I did!
I believed when i was younger too. However, i wasnt baptized into the Holy Spirit. But i didnt need some big experience to see evidence-I simply saw everything in favor of my belief, and it made sense to me.

Besides how can you rail on agnostics and atheists for no accepting evidence when you believe believe is seeing, you might as well say "When the facts don't fit your belief, change the facts". It's the epitome of hypocrisy.
not what im saying at all. In the case of a creationist-evolutionist debate, they can argue all they want, but as long as they see things through a different perspective, they wont get anywhere. If you really want to see why i believe, take a look through my perspective, because ive had a look through yours.

I didn't bring faith into the debate.
but you are in that sort of argument.

Woah! You really nailed me on that one!
you should look around more. Plenty of philosophers have made logical arguments for God's existence. That, however, does not mean they have proven God's existence with such arguments.


As I've already said if you have personal proof good for you. I'm not going to believe you when you tell me that you do
and i really dont expect you to. Ive learned not to speak of it in a debate after talking to a friend a long while ago. It will be passed off as insanity.
I can't usually disprove anybody's personal proof (but trust me I'm working on it :p).
:lol:
i can laugh, right? no sarcasm, that made me laugh.

I haven't looked at Aquinas' arguments in detail, but I've looked at them briefly (and do intend to eventually look at them in more detail) and they really don't seem all that great to be honest.
He actually made "5 ways" for God's existence. Interesting, but i dont expect you to believe after that.

[guitrguy]

It's not though that's the thing. Practically speaking I'm an atheist (other than the essays and long drawn out arguments I suppose:p), but philosophically speaking I'm agnostic because in this case the best we can do really is "I don't know".
Same could be said about some religious people.

I have a friend who is writing a research paper on atheism, I might have him post it on here when he is done with it.

[koastokoast]

I didn't bring faith into the debate. Nor am I concerned about people's personal beliefs bein part of the debate as that is what the debate is about, however if someone's personal beliefs have no basis in logic there is no way they will hold their ground in a debate as arguments must be logical or they are useless. Forget how much of a crackpot I may think that person is the fact remains trying to debate without using logic is like trying to play a game without rules, it just doesn't work, it's useless (beyond being an exercise in hilarity).

Just because someone's beliefs do not fall in to the category of 'logical' does not render them useless. After all, your preconception that every argument has to be logical is your own belief anyway, if I were to come and tell you that my own personal belief was logical, and you disagreed, would that mean that my belief is useless? How can you define 'logical'? It's subjective. You're being biased about this yourself. You are saying that there have to be rules, but don't forget these have be common rules, otherwise there is no fair argument anyway.

[RNR]

Claiming that something doesn't exist without proof is just as bad as believing that it does without proof.

I'd like to remind everyone that you can be Agnostic but still hate organized religion :)

[Shell]

Claiming that something doesn't exist without proof is just as bad as believing that it does without proof.

I'd like to remind everyone that you can be Agnostic but still hate organized religion :)

You can also be a faithful person and hate organized religion.

[RockAndRoll]

i KNEW it
you figured me out!:p

it was taken from atheist.com!
Hey, I seem to remember reading this already :confused:. But seriously just because something comes from a bias source doesn't nessecarily make it incorrect or useless. I think regardless of where it came from it backs up my point pretty well and I don't think there's anything wrong with the article itself.

when a switch is on, its not off. When a switch is off, it is not on. Whats the difference between not off and on, or off and not on?
A person cannot truly hold no position on a yes or no issue. I accept the fact that some are just plain unsure, but i still think they are leaning one way or another. I know im going far off with this, but Christ said whoever's not for Him is against. If someone doesnt go in favor, they're against, no matter what. Thats the excluded middle, not to be mistaken with any fallacy.
Why are we talking about switches when I already clearly explained how it works using beliefs themselves?
I'd agree that most people probably do lean at least slightly one way or another but there's a significant number of people for whom they do not lean enough or who constantly change which way they lean so much that it would be stupid to call them either theist or atheist.


yes, quite opinionated. Thing is, I didnt come out of the womb believing. There are plenty who have gone a while without seeing evidence, but then started believing. You cant necessarily say the same for the other.
Yes, I can I know many people on all (3) sides who've converted during their lifetimes.

I believed when i was younger too. However, i wasnt baptized into the Holy Spirit. But i didnt need some big experience to see evidence-I simply saw everything in favor of my belief, and it made sense to me.
Well it didn't work that way for me.

not what im saying at all. In the case of a creationist-evolutionist debate, they can argue all they want, but as long as they see things through a different perspective, they wont get anywhere. If you really want to see why i believe, take a look through my perspective, because ive had a look through yours.
You can't see things through different perspectives and get somewheere it's just when people are too stubborn or there is absolutely nothing they can agree on that things won't work. I've looked through your perspective too, I've tried to get that point across.

but you are in that sort of argument.
but not by my doing. Anything becomes a faith argument when someone brings faith into it, but in this case it wasn't me.

you should look around more. Plenty of philosophers have made logical arguments for God's existence. That, however, does not mean they have proven God's existence with such arguments.
I knew you were going to say this. I should have been more specific. As I acknowledge in my essay people do try to argue for god on logical grounds but I was trying to say they haven't succeeded.


and i really dont expect you to. Ive learned not to speak of it in a debate after talking to a friend a long while ago. It will be passed off as insanity.
good.

:lol:
i can laugh, right? no sarcasm, that made me laugh.
:lol: I'm glad

step one comple: made opponent feel relaxed and comfortable, now he's right where I want him

He actually made "5 ways" for God's existence. Interesting, but i dont expect you to believe after that.
That's good. Like I said I know Aquinas made several arguments and I've looked at some of them, and intend to look at them more, but really I can't say I'm all that impressed or stumped by them.

[RockAndRoll]

Just because someone's beliefs do not fall in to the category of 'logical' does not render them useless. After all, your preconception that every argument has to be logical is your own belief anyway, if I were to come and tell you that my own personal belief was logical, and you disagreed, would that mean that my belief is useless? How can you define 'logical'? It's subjective. You're being biased about this yourself. You are saying that there have to be rules, but don't forget these have be common rules, otherwise there is no fair argument anyway.
I defy you to hold any even somewhat meaningful argument without logic. It simply cannot be done. Logic is a naturally imposed rule on any debate as debates simply don't make sense without them, there's no way to get around it. Go out and try debating without using logic, then come back and tell me what you think.

Debates don't make sense without logic. Debating without logic is a fundamentally stupid idea.

[RNR]

You can also be a faithful person and hate organized religion.

That too. I know plenty of theists who refuse to waste their time with church.

[BassRevelation1029]

Why are we talking about switches when I already clearly explained how it works using beliefs themselves?

why were we talking about rocks when we were dealing with humans?

I'd agree that most people probably do lean at least slightly one way or another but there's a significant number of people for whom they do not lean enough or who constantly change which way they lean so much that it would be stupid to call them either theist or atheist.
hm, so you think the label is the issue.



Yes, I can I know many people on all (3) sides who've converted during their lifetimes.
i dont think you saw my idea. It wouldnt be logical for someone to say "i saw God, but i dont see Him anymore so He doesnt exist."


Well it didn't work that way for me.
yeah, we're all special


but not by my doing. Anything becomes a faith argument when someone brings faith into it, but in this case it wasn't me.
if you ask someone why they believe, you're bringing up faith. You cant always expect something logical when faith is put into the equation.


I knew you were going to say this. I should have been more specific. As I acknowledge in my essay people do try to argue for god on logical grounds but I was trying to say they haven't succeeded.
succeeded in what? Proving Him? If thats what you mean, i totally agree. If you're saying they had poor logic in the process, im gonna have to disagree with you on most.

:lol: I'm glad

step one comple: made opponent feel relaxed and comfortable, now he's right where I want him
not.cool :mad:


That's good. Like I said I know Aquinas made several arguments and I've looked at some of them, and intend to look at them more, but really I can't say I'm all that impressed or stumped by them.
I honestly cant say that either, but hey, its an argument.

[koastokoast]

I defy you to hold any even somewhat meaningful argument without logic. It simply cannot be done. Logic is a naturally imposed rule on any debate as debates simply don't make sense without them, there's no way to get around it. Go out and try debating without using logic, then come back and tell me what you think.

Debates don't make sense without logic. Debating without logic is a fundamentally stupid idea.
That's all fine and good, and although you didn't answer what I was saying, I agree with your statement above, except logic is not a naturally imposed rule on any debate at all, and a logical argument may make perfect sense to one person and none at all to another. People's beliefs (maybe obviously) often interfer with their ability to think with an open mind.

[RockAndRoll]

why were we talking about rocks when we were dealing with humans?
Because rocks demonstrated that it is possible not to have any belief. However I expanded my argument anyways and have even dealt nwith humans making a decision with only two possibilities, I don't know what else I could do.
hm, so you think the label is the issue.
Not really a label issue, but even if you have someone who everytime you ask them is leaning slightly in a different way in effect they are agnostic.

i dont think you saw my idea. It wouldnt be logical for someone to say "i saw God, but i dont see Him anymore so He doesnt exist."
But it is logical to say "I thought I saw God, but don't any more"


yeah, we're all special
awwww.

if you ask someone why they believe, you're bringing up faith. You cant always expect something logical when faith is put into the equation.
I don't think asking someone why they believe is bringing faith into it. They bring faith into it because there reason for believing is faith.

succeeded in what? Proving Him? If thats what you mean, i totally agree. If you're saying they had poor logic in the process, im gonna have to disagree with you on most.
I believe they didn't succeed in logical argument because there was a logical misstep somewhere in their argument.

not.cool :mad:
Now I have to start all over again.


I honestly cant say that either, but hey, its an argument.
meh.

[halfdeadhippo]

I think that there's some kind of common misconception that agnosticism only applies to the Christian God. If that were the case, then yes, I'd probably be considered an atheist, because that idea just doesn't seem probable to me. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that I have a blood hatred with all Christians. It just means that I think that one specific idea of a divine being is unprobablle. Meanwhile, there's still an infinite number of possibilities of divine beings that are left to make a decision about, with varying probability for each. The same applies to every other divine being, as well. That's how I see it, at least.

[RockAndRoll]

That's all fine and good, and although you didn't answer what I was saying, I agree with your statement above, except logic is not a naturally imposed rule on any debate at all, and a logical argument may make perfect sense to one person and none at all to another. People's beliefs (maybe obviously) often interfer with their ability to think with an open mind.
What was I supposed to answer?

Logic is a naturally imposed ruled on debating, there's simply no way around it. Without some type of argument (which invariably must at least attempt to be logical or isn't even an argument) you can't have a debate.

I'm not saying everyone understands logic or that people always use it properly or that your logic must be correct to have a debate but without logic there can be no debate. Ofcourse people's beliefs interfere with their ability to think with an open mind but when it interferes to the point where they no longer use any logic what is going on ceases to be a debate.

[RockAndRoll]

I think that there's some kind of common misconception that agnosticism only applies to the Christian God. If that were the case, then yes, I'd probably be considered an atheist, because that idea just doesn't seem probable to me. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that I have a blood hatred with all Christians. It just means that I think that one specific idea of a divine being is unprobablle. Meanwhile, there's still an infinite number of possibilities of divine beings that are left to make a decision about, with varying probability for each. The same applies to every other divine being, as well. That's how I see it, at least.
Agreed! :thumb: I talked about that briefly in my first post.

[BassRevelation1029]

Not really a label issue, but even if you have someone who everytime you ask them is leaning slightly in a different way in effect they are agnostic.
they can believe, but still not know. Ive heard of agnostic theists, who lean to the believing side but just dont know.


But it is logical to say "I thought I saw God, but don't any more"
not unless you figure out what you saw actually was


I don't think asking someone why they believe is bringing faith into it.
of course it is.

They bring faith into it because there reason for believing is faith.
well, everyone has faith, and we are speaking of beliefs here.


I believe they didn't succeed in logical argument because there was a logical misstep somewhere in their argument.
im gonna assume you've read every logical argument about God and know every principle of logic.
Or I'll just say you're wrong.

[RockAndRoll]

they can believe, but still not know. Ive heard of agnostic theists, who lean to the believing side but just dont know.
Okay, but my point still stands the same.

not unless you figure out what you saw actually was
or why you thought you saw God.

of course it is.
nope.

well, everyone has faith, and we are speaking of beliefs here.
Yes, but there's a difference between basing a belief in faith and having a little bit of faith along with evidence and reasoning to support your belief.

im gonna assume you've read every logical argument about God and know every principle of logic.
Or I'll just say you're wrong.
Well probably not, but I've heard alot of them and I presume if someone had actually thought of a logical proof for god which really had no holes in it I would have heard it or about it in the billions of times I've talked about, read about and argued about the subject. Do you have any examples of flawless logical arguments that prove god?