Topic: Agnosticism is fucking retarded, and it is not "logical".
Anonymous A started this discussion 15 years ago #4,741
You are not agnostic about flying carpets, or unicorns, nor do you say "no one can know" when asked if the matrix is real. You wouldn't tell a skeptic of genies that "hey, it's possible genies exist, stop acting like you know everything"...And yet when someone says they are not convinced god exists, you go on about how they are obviously closed minded and as dogmatic as Christians.
FFS, possible does not in any way equate to credibility. I could come up with no limit to theoretical ideas, (a small teacup to tiny to see is orbiting the sun, but we haven't found it yet- YOU CAN'T PROVE ME WRONG) but that doesn't mean it's likely at all.
Try this: Believe only what you know. If you are not a theist then by definition you are an atheist (not necessarily a STRONG atheist). Simply being an atheist does not mean you claim god doesn't exist, it simply means you treat it like any other idea and will wait for proof before believing it.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
RedFox !FANATICibM joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #84,173
Okay, cool.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 30 seconds later, 1 minute after the original post[^] [v] #84,174
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 22 seconds later, 2 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #84,175
Your mum isn't logical.
RedFox !FANATICibM replied with this 15 years ago, 45 seconds later, 2 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #84,176
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 24 seconds later, 3 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #84,177
I feel the same way about god as I do about ghosts. Are they real? Probably not, but I can't be sure.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #84,178
@previous (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
And do you find these concepts any more credible than, say, unicorns? If so, why?
And do you find these concepts any more credible than, say, unicorns? If so, why?
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 16 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #84,186
@previous (A)
Well for one thing, people seem to have sightings of ghosts. Even people who I know that aren't loopy have had some sort of paranormal experience.
Well for one thing, people seem to have sightings of ghosts. Even people who I know that aren't loopy have had some sort of paranormal experience.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 25 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #84,195
@previous (totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic)
If ghosts were real, people would be able to get real evidence of them. They would find out what they were made of, how they worked, etc. They have done it with subatomic particles, far off galaxies, reconstructed dinosaurs etc.
If ghosts were real, someone would have proved it. But ghost sighting will keep happening because people don't understand a situation. Perhaps a cat knocked something over, and they jump to conclusions. I like to play practical jokes on people, and a paranormal enthusiastic would be a prime target for these jokes.
If we lived in a different culture, it would be some other phenomenon.
Gorillas used to be thought of as a mythical creature, along with tigers. People used to think unicorns were real. Who knows?
Again, there is no real evidence of unicorns, and you can't mistake much for a unicorn, whereas anything could be mistaken for a ghost (sleepwalking, cats, the wind, a power outage, etc.).
If ghosts were real, people would be able to get real evidence of them. They would find out what they were made of, how they worked, etc. They have done it with subatomic particles, far off galaxies, reconstructed dinosaurs etc.
If ghosts were real, someone would have proved it. But ghost sighting will keep happening because people don't understand a situation. Perhaps a cat knocked something over, and they jump to conclusions. I like to play practical jokes on people, and a paranormal enthusiastic would be a prime target for these jokes.
If we lived in a different culture, it would be some other phenomenon.
Gorillas used to be thought of as a mythical creature, along with tigers. People used to think unicorns were real. Who knows?
Again, there is no real evidence of unicorns, and you can't mistake much for a unicorn, whereas anything could be mistaken for a ghost (sleepwalking, cats, the wind, a power outage, etc.).
totoforhire !!Phkn/3Gic replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 31 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #84,197
vocalon !0oDERPONYY joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 25 minutes later, 56 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #84,208
This bullshit again?
Broken_record.docx
Broken_record.docx
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 59 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #84,213
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 34 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #84,228
ITT: leprechauns, zombies, goblins, genies, flying carpets, golems, trolls, ghosts, unicorns, and the flying spaghetti monster.
hamfist !!H5dpJbHDI joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 54 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #84,260
The Bible is ripe with metaphors and phrases lost in translation. Just saiyan'.Syntax joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #84,331
I believe in Gods, not just the current tour jur "one God" & who has a proven track record as worthless and or ineffective.
advi !!3gpAcg/hF joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #84,333
i'm agnostic because i do not care, and would rather say "okay, a flying rainbow unicorn might exist" than try to argue that it doesn't when i know damn well that i am not in a position to decide.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #84,334
Actually, I DO allow for the possibility of unicorns, and anything else. NOTHING is "impossible." In an infinite universe, ANYTHING is possible, by definition.
[^_^] joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #84,336
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #84,346
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
> People don't realise that atheism is the same as agnosticism.
LOLno
> People don't realise that atheism is the same as agnosticism.
LOLno
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #84,348
@84,331 (Syntax)
@84,334 (L)
Then might as well not have certainty on anything.
"Is there a monster in my closet, daddy?"
"Probably not, but we can't know for sure"
"Are you coming to work today?"
"I plan to, but who knows what could happen."
"Do you think that Obama is from Kenya"
"Probably not, but I could be wrong"
"Ugh, some idiot tried to convince me that the Illuminati is controlling the world through puppet governments"
"He might be right!"
@84,334 (L)
Then might as well not have certainty on anything.
"Is there a monster in my closet, daddy?"
"Probably not, but we can't know for sure"
"Are you coming to work today?"
"I plan to, but who knows what could happen."
"Do you think that Obama is from Kenya"
"Probably not, but I could be wrong"
"Ugh, some idiot tried to convince me that the Illuminati is controlling the world through puppet governments"
"He might be right!"
(Edited 27 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #84,352
@84,346 (N)
Agnostic = "without knowledge" AKA, I don't know.
They are not a strong theist or a theist, which makes them... an atheist.
All atheist is ->>> not a theist
"No gods exist, I am sure of that" = strong atheist, or anti-theist.
Agnostic = "without knowledge" AKA, I don't know.
They are not a strong theist or a theist, which makes them... an atheist.
All atheist is ->>> not a theist
"No gods exist, I am sure of that" = strong atheist, or anti-theist.
Anonymous N replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #84,358
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #84,365
@previous (N)
The idea is contradictory. You cannot claim "god exists" and at the same time "Got might not exist". That is a contradiction.
As is agnostic strong-atheism a contradiction.
An agnostic cannot claim that god does or does not exist. He must lack both claims.
> An agnostic theist believes the proposition at least one deity exists is true
They say it's true
> but per agnosticism also believes that this proposition is unknown or inherently unknowable.
But that they can't know.
People who identify as this are really saying "I suspect god exists, but I can't know."
The idea is contradictory. You cannot claim "god exists" and at the same time "Got might not exist". That is a contradiction.
As is agnostic strong-atheism a contradiction.
An agnostic cannot claim that god does or does not exist. He must lack both claims.
> An agnostic theist believes the proposition at least one deity exists is true
They say it's true
> but per agnosticism also believes that this proposition is unknown or inherently unknowable.
But that they can't know.
People who identify as this are really saying "I suspect god exists, but I can't know."
Anonymous N replied with this 15 years ago, 15 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #84,378
@previous (A)
The ideas are very much compatible. A belief in God or gods is just that -- a belief. It requires no proof. One may be very much a theist and still be agnostic, or "without knowledge" as you have said, without compromising one's belief; whether they believe that knowledge is humanly unattainable or merely unavailable doesn't really matter in terms of their belief.
You seem to be confusing proof with faith in a given position. Proof isn't necessarily required in order to have a belief one way or the other. (If it were, theists wouldn't have a position at all.)
The ideas are very much compatible. A belief in God or gods is just that -- a belief. It requires no proof. One may be very much a theist and still be agnostic, or "without knowledge" as you have said, without compromising one's belief; whether they believe that knowledge is humanly unattainable or merely unavailable doesn't really matter in terms of their belief.
You seem to be confusing proof with faith in a given position. Proof isn't necessarily required in order to have a belief one way or the other. (If it were, theists wouldn't have a position at all.)
Syntax replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #84,379
@84,365 (A)
> The idea is contradictory. You cannot claim "god exists" and at the same time Got(d) might not exist". That is a contradiction.
I can make that claim. My Gods...{not sure which ones yet} may exist and I can prove the other God (the popular one} does not exist.
> The idea is contradictory. You cannot claim "god exists" and at the same time Got(d) might not exist". That is a contradiction.
I can make that claim. My Gods...{not sure which ones yet} may exist and I can prove the other God (the popular one} does not exist.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 hour later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #84,386
@84,378 (N)
> The ideas are very much compatible. A belief in God or gods is just that -- a belief.
Beliefs do not require proof of course. However if someone admits they can't/don't know, and also claims to believe god does/doesn't exist, they contradict themselves. A theist or antitheist believes that they do know.
> One may be very much a theist and still be agnostic, or "without knowledge" as you have said, without compromising one's belief; whether they believe that knowledge is humanly unattainable or merely unavailable doesn't really matter in terms of their belief.
If they are a theist they believe "god exists". If they are an agnostic they believe "I cannot know". That would mean they someone understand they can't know, but still claim to know. A contradiction. If they do not think they know, then they do not believe it, but merely suspect it.
> You seem to be confusing proof with faith in a given position.
I am not. People will believe things based on reason and faith. Belief can come about many ways.
> Proof isn't necessarily required in order to have a belief one way or the other.
I never said it was.
theists form beliefs based on faith. If they can admit that they might be wrong then they don't believe, they *suspect*, or *believe it is most likely true*, but do not simply *believe it*
> The ideas are very much compatible. A belief in God or gods is just that -- a belief.
Beliefs do not require proof of course. However if someone admits they can't/don't know, and also claims to believe god does/doesn't exist, they contradict themselves. A theist or antitheist believes that they do know.
> One may be very much a theist and still be agnostic, or "without knowledge" as you have said, without compromising one's belief; whether they believe that knowledge is humanly unattainable or merely unavailable doesn't really matter in terms of their belief.
If they are a theist they believe "god exists". If they are an agnostic they believe "I cannot know". That would mean they someone understand they can't know, but still claim to know. A contradiction. If they do not think they know, then they do not believe it, but merely suspect it.
> You seem to be confusing proof with faith in a given position.
I am not. People will believe things based on reason and faith. Belief can come about many ways.
> Proof isn't necessarily required in order to have a belief one way or the other.
I never said it was.
theists form beliefs based on faith. If they can admit that they might be wrong then they don't believe, they *suspect*, or *believe it is most likely true*, but do not simply *believe it*
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #84,387
@84,379 (Syntax)
> I can make that claim. My Gods...{not sure which ones yet} may exist
So then, you make not the claim "my god exists", but rather "my god might exist". See the difference? If someone believes simply "god exists" then that means that the thoughts they have, the beliefs, is that god exists. If they one day decided they might be wrong, they are no longer simply believers, but suspecters. "He probably exists, but I admit, he might not".
> I can make that claim. My Gods...{not sure which ones yet} may exist
So then, you make not the claim "my god exists", but rather "my god might exist". See the difference? If someone believes simply "god exists" then that means that the thoughts they have, the beliefs, is that god exists. If they one day decided they might be wrong, they are no longer simply believers, but suspecters. "He probably exists, but I admit, he might not".
Anonymous N replied with this 15 years ago, 15 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #84,390
@84,386 (A)
> However if someone admits they can't/don't know, and also claims to believe god does/doesn't exist, they contradict themselves.
No. You are still confusing knowing and believing. A belief of God or gods is not and does not require knowledge, and a lack of knowledge is not disbelief or skepticism -- it is just a lack of knowledge.
> You cannot claim "god exists" and at the same time "Got might not exist". That is a contradiction.
An agnostic would not have to claim either. If they happened to believe in a God or gods, admitting that they do not have any direct knowledge of that is not the same as making or embracing the claim that "God might not exist" nor does that lack of knowledge require that they make or embrace such a claim. That person may believe that God is unknowable or that the gods are testing their faith or any other number of things that allow them to maintain their belief without ever making a claim that the God or gods they believe in may not exist. Again, it is simply a lack of knowledge.
> However if someone admits they can't/don't know, and also claims to believe god does/doesn't exist, they contradict themselves.
No. You are still confusing knowing and believing. A belief of God or gods is not and does not require knowledge, and a lack of knowledge is not disbelief or skepticism -- it is just a lack of knowledge.
> You cannot claim "god exists" and at the same time "Got might not exist". That is a contradiction.
An agnostic would not have to claim either. If they happened to believe in a God or gods, admitting that they do not have any direct knowledge of that is not the same as making or embracing the claim that "God might not exist" nor does that lack of knowledge require that they make or embrace such a claim. That person may believe that God is unknowable or that the gods are testing their faith or any other number of things that allow them to maintain their belief without ever making a claim that the God or gods they believe in may not exist. Again, it is simply a lack of knowledge.
Syntax replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #84,392
I make the claim/point/ that far too many, have eliminated the 5000 Gods from the Past, and currently most people now believe in just one God. This one God is impotent and has no value other then as a phantom crutch in peoples lives.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #84,393
@84,390 (N)
> A belief of God or gods is not and does not require knowledge
I never said it does.
> and a lack of knowledge is not disbelief or skepticism -- it is just a lack of knowledge.
Correct.
People who believe, think they are correct.
A correct belief is knowledge.
If someone believes god exists, they think they know god exists (although, if god exists, they do not know this, they merely think this).
If someone says "I do not know", then they are saying they might not have a correct belief.
Admitting they do not have a correct belief means they do not fully believe, but merely suspect.
Belief: a thought one thinks is true. (subjective idea)
Knowledge: A correct belief. (subjective idea, that is also objective)
> A belief of God or gods is not and does not require knowledge
I never said it does.
> and a lack of knowledge is not disbelief or skepticism -- it is just a lack of knowledge.
Correct.
People who believe, think they are correct.
A correct belief is knowledge.
If someone believes god exists, they think they know god exists (although, if god exists, they do not know this, they merely think this).
If someone says "I do not know", then they are saying they might not have a correct belief.
Admitting they do not have a correct belief means they do not fully believe, but merely suspect.
Belief: a thought one thinks is true. (subjective idea)
Knowledge: A correct belief. (subjective idea, that is also objective)
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous N replied with this 15 years ago, 16 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^] [v] #84,397
@previous (A)
> > A belief of God or gods is not and does not require knowledge
> I never said it does.
> > and a lack of knowledge is not disbelief or skepticism -- it is just a lack of knowledge.
> Correct.
Super, then there is no inherent contradiction in being agnostic and a theist.
> People who believe, think they are correct.
> A correct belief is knowledge.
Wait, a belief can be correct with or without knowledge or direct experience on the part of the believer. The truth of a particular statement and anyone's given experience are not dependent upon each other. If you flip a coin and I believe it to be heads, that belief may be correct or incorrect. I may hold that belief with or without knowledge of how the coin landed.
> If someone believes god exists, they think they know god exists (although, if god exists, they do not know this, they merely think this).
Super! believing != knowing
> If someone says "I do not know", then they are saying they might not have a correct belief.
They are simply saying they do not know.
> Admitting they do not have a correct belief means they do not fully believe, but merely suspect.
You can call it whatever you want, a belief (or suspicion, if you like) it is independent of any knowledge.
> > A belief of God or gods is not and does not require knowledge
> I never said it does.
> > and a lack of knowledge is not disbelief or skepticism -- it is just a lack of knowledge.
> Correct.
Super, then there is no inherent contradiction in being agnostic and a theist.
> People who believe, think they are correct.
> A correct belief is knowledge.
Wait, a belief can be correct with or without knowledge or direct experience on the part of the believer. The truth of a particular statement and anyone's given experience are not dependent upon each other. If you flip a coin and I believe it to be heads, that belief may be correct or incorrect. I may hold that belief with or without knowledge of how the coin landed.
> If someone believes god exists, they think they know god exists (although, if god exists, they do not know this, they merely think this).
Super! believing != knowing
> If someone says "I do not know", then they are saying they might not have a correct belief.
They are simply saying they do not know.
> Admitting they do not have a correct belief means they do not fully believe, but merely suspect.
You can call it whatever you want, a belief (or suspicion, if you like) it is independent of any knowledge.
(Edited 22 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 6 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #84,477
@previous (N)
> Super, then there is no inherent contradiction in being agnostic and a theist.
Incorrect, because agnosticism theism isn't "belief and lack of knowledge" it's "belief and belief of lack of knowledge".
You aren't agnostic if you simply lack knowledge, agnostics are agnostics because they say they are unsure.
If someone is agnostic that means they believe they can't know if they are right. It has zero to do with if they are actually right.
> Wait, a belief can be correct with or without knowledge
If a belief is correct that makes it knowledge.
> If you flip a coin and I believe it to be heads, that belief may be correct or incorrect.
Yes, I didn't say otherwise.
> I may hold that belief with or without knowledge of how the coin landed.
I never said a belief had to be correct in order to be a belief. I said a belief had to be correct in order to be knowledge.
> Super! believing != knowing
Yes!
> You can call it whatever you want, a belief (or suspicion, if you like) it is independent of any knowledge.
Knowledge is a correct belief.
I believe 2+2=4. That is also knowledge.
If I believe 2+2=5, that is just a belief- not knowledge.
> Super, then there is no inherent contradiction in being agnostic and a theist.
Incorrect, because agnosticism theism isn't "belief and lack of knowledge" it's "belief and belief of lack of knowledge".
You aren't agnostic if you simply lack knowledge, agnostics are agnostics because they say they are unsure.
If someone is agnostic that means they believe they can't know if they are right. It has zero to do with if they are actually right.
> Wait, a belief can be correct with or without knowledge
If a belief is correct that makes it knowledge.
> If you flip a coin and I believe it to be heads, that belief may be correct or incorrect.
Yes, I didn't say otherwise.
> I may hold that belief with or without knowledge of how the coin landed.
I never said a belief had to be correct in order to be a belief. I said a belief had to be correct in order to be knowledge.
> Super! believing != knowing
Yes!
> You can call it whatever you want, a belief (or suspicion, if you like) it is independent of any knowledge.
Knowledge is a correct belief.
I believe 2+2=4. That is also knowledge.
If I believe 2+2=5, that is just a belief- not knowledge.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 25 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #84,483
Dragons, hm?
I wouldn't be too sure about their non-existence...
I wouldn't be too sure about their non-existence...