Agnosticism: The most logical choice

Yikes. Calm down. There are far more important things to talk about. What, I can't remember. Your arguing distracted my.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Also just because he's on my friends list doesn't mean that I asked him here or asked him to act. Or even he is acting out of any sense of obligation. Or perhaps I should accuse the same of you and wyn? Though I won't I assure you as I don't think that is the case or care really.

...well, sugar butt, obviously you DO REALLY CARE or you wouldnt have bothered typin' that... i'm so flattered i could spit...


...btw, you know what we do down here with folks who say "i assure you"?... we make 'em prove their word means more than snot and thats snot as easy as it sounds cuz ya have to do it while dancin' the hoocheecoo on the back of bull thats got his bawls cinched up (makes 'em a bit testy)...


...sidebar:... cutest purse i ever saw in my whole life was made out of a bull's bawl and it was as soft as a baby's butt... i asked the maker if it was a left bawl or a right bawl but he didn't answer, just stared at me like i was a crazy woman... i heard him tawlkin later, he was a foreigner - from wisconsin or michigan or new yark - one them there places where men sound like they've got a nasal infection...


...anyways - lurker, uh, i meant, uh, watcher, by the time i got to the end of your VERY LONG post, i couldnt figure out what you were fussin' about... i was trying (and i mean i was REALLY trying) to follow your cute little copy&paste jobbers but memories of my youngest daughter pitchin' a fit kept poppin' into my noodle... she was about 13 at the time (she's into her 30s now), so everything was purty much a hormonal rant with her... her daddy wasnt much help, too busy laughing, everything she did was SO dang cute to him... boys are easier to raise, until they grow into stupid and wanna jump out of perfectly good airplanes cuz dad did it and survived (with brain damage)...


...so, anyhooters, its been nice tawlkin to ya, lurker, but i gotta say (even though i aint yo' mama) you're takin' all this WAY too seriously and life is too short to get all riled up about a silly thread on a message board... you should be out trippin' the light fantastic or wavin' your freak flag or something like that there...

ATTENTION:

Can we please try and focus on the topic, and not on each other.

Thank you.

I'm not going to read all 9 pages of this thread but I'll just throw in my two cents, as I've done a lot of thinking and researching about this subject. As I see it, "agnostic" and "atheist" are not quite competing in the same category.

Agnosticism is a position on knowledge, while atheism is a position on belief.

Whether or not you choose to equate knowledge with belief, or where you draw the line between the two, is up to you. For example, you could be an agnostic atheist. This would mean that you:

1) Lack a belief in deities such as God (atheist), but

2) Do not deny the possibility that deities such as God might exist (agnostic).

By this same token you could also be an agnostic theist, who believes in God but also acknowledges that there is a possibility that God does not exist. Basically, you can have a belief without declaring that you "know" your belief is absolutely true.

"We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know."

- Robert G. Ingersoll, "Why I Am An Agnostic," 1896

Also, for those interested in agnosticism, I recommend looking into Ignosticism (spelled with an I). Essentially it is like agnosticism, only it adds that because there is no single, consistent definition of "God," the answer to the likelihood of "God's" existence depends entirely upon what your definition of "God" is. This definition can vary quite a bit from person to person, and in fact could hypothetically be just about anything, so it all depends to some degree on what definition you're referring to.

[edit on 9-3-2010 by Magnus47]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Surprise...more definitions...lol...too funny.

Your definitions actually support my definition of logic...not your "reasonable guessing" theory.


Listen carefully...this is a false statement:

If there is no proof of A being true, then A is not true.
OR
If there is no proof of A being true, then A is false.

“Since there is no proof that Mr. Jones has committed acts of espionage, therefore he is not a spy.”

IF you can't see the fault in the above logic...then there is no helping you. You simply cannot see correct or incorrect logic.

There is no proof HE IS NOT A SPY...so saying HE IS NOT A SPY is illogical. Lack of evidence does not equate to evidence. It is REASONBLE to say that there is no reason to believe he is spy, it is REASONABLE to say that you don't THINK he is a spy. But it is plain ILLOGICAL to say HE IS NOT A SPY....this is a statement of fact...a fact which there is no evidence to support it.

But for some reason you can't admit that. If you believe in this faulty logic...then you should be an atheists...because this this is what they use. Absence of evidence = evidence of absence to atheists...and this is exactly what you are defending.

The example you took exception to *and have altered to fit your purposes.

What exactly is my purpose? Here is my original statement about my objection to the statements:

I do not agree that 3 and 4 are reasonable inferences. A reasonable inference for 3 would be that there is no reason to believe that Mr. Jones is not a spy...but not to flat out say "he is not a spy". Logic is about absolutes...so when you make a statement of "therefore he is not a spy", that is supposed to mean that 100% truth that he is not a spy.

I don't think that discredits any of his other arguments directly...but it just makes me question his grasp on logic.

On to my ad homs and "taunts". If you take a question as a personal attack...then that says something about YOU personally...not an attack from me. It is a simple question...there is no shame if you haven't been educated in logic...it just is what it is.

My other "ad homs" I'll stand by...because they are directed at you dodging my questions....not about the correctness or incorrectness of the logic of the statements (which is the only "goal" I have).

I do THINK a master of fallacies...you have never demonstrated "logic"...only knowledge of multiple fallacies. I have look in some of your previous posts...this is a common practice for you. You often attack accusing of fallacies, but fail to put your input as to what the correct logic actually is.

I do THINK I know your answer to my question...your lack of response is answer enough.

I do THINK you are confused as to what formal logic is, and that impairs your judgment.

I do THINK you paste a bunch of definitions as a distraction tool...looks like you are saying something while you actually are not saying anything useful. Use your own words...not those of others. Think for yourself.

I do THINK you should take some classes on formal logic...it may open your eyes..and you can spend more time on LOGIC than FALLACIES.

Please note all the "THINK"'s in the above statements. Which means it is my OPINION...not statements of facts. An opinion is not an attack and neither is a question. It is up to you to change my OPINION of you...not the other way around.

And by "bare assertion" is that there should be no guessing in logic? LOL. I'll play like you...here is part of YOUR definition of logic

Logic is not the psychology of reasoning
One thing you should note about this definition is that logic is concerned with the principles of correct reasoning. Studying the correct principles of reasoning is not the same as studying the psychology of reasoning. Logic is the former discipline, and it tells us how we ought to reason if we want to reason correctly. Whether people actually follow these rules of correct reasoning is an empirical matter, something that is not the concern of logic.

This pretty plainly says logic is about the CORRECT PRINCIPLES OF REASONING.

And that is all I'm concerned about...the correct principles of reasoning. And the original articl in statements 3 and 4 are not following the correct principle of reasoning.


No matter how many definitions you copy/paste. The author of the articl has not used the correct principles of reasoning when he says that since there is NO PROOF that Mr. Jones is a spy, THEREFORE HE IS NOT A SPY.

There are times there is no proof someone is a murderer...and yet he is in fact a murderer.

There are times there is no proof someone is dead (missng person)...and yet he is dead.

There are times there is no proof that SOMEONE IS A SPY...and yet he is a spy.

His argument is faulty on this statement...for some reason you can't see it. And your defense is that ONE of the definitions in the dictionary of "inference" is to "guess" or to "hint". But this isn't the definition used in logic. What is the sense in logic if we are just guessing.

If the authors statement is true and not fallacious...then this statement is also true.

“Since there is no proof that Mr. Jones has committed acts of espionage, therefore he is a really good spy.”

Because you could GUESS that since there is no proof of him commiting acts of espionage...then that must mean he is a spy and so good at it that he leaves no evidence.

Neither of them have any proof to back up their conclusions...but they are saying the opposite things.






So let's start over from scratch.

We will go step by step.

3. “Since there is no proof that Mr. Jones has committed acts of espionage, therefore he is not a spy.”

Do you think this statement is logically correct as the author claims it is? He claims this is not a fallacious argument. Do you agree?

[edit on 9-3-2010 by OutKast Searcher]

I am officially relabelling myself an agnostic Wiccan

I follow Isis because I have seen and felt and talked to her (at least I think I have)

I get so tired of Christians thining they have proof of God...actual concrete proof...where is it? A book? Prove to me that book wasn't totally farcical? Can I prove the Book of the Dead wasn't farcical? heck no...so for me to think you will automatically believe me and follow Her is silly.

On page one it was mentioned that there was three types of proof of God

Here is my rebuttal...

Scientific proof - Sorry but there hasn't ever been real concrete undeniable proof of God

Historical proof - Well your book isn't the only one that can have some verification of it so what makes yours better?

Immaterial proof - Yes you hace millions of people who believe so it 'must mean something'. Well there are millions of Muslims. Is Allah real? Is he the one true god? There are millions so it must mean something too

They way I see it there are two differences between me and other people who have seen or felt a deity

1. I cannot and probably will not ever be 100% sure what I felt from Her was real. It's unprovable. Christians have long told me my visions of Isis were delusions. How do you honestly know yours weren't? The difference is I cannot prove through my anectdotes that she is real and neither can you.

2. I don't feel the need to tell other people they are wrong...simple and to the point

So here is my new statement that I am sticking with

"Isis: I have seen her, felt her and heard her. At least I think I have, and that is enough for me"

Now go find your own truth...but never think you've got it figured out 100% because you probably don't

-Kyo

reply to post by Magnus47


The last nine pages aren't really worth reading so you commit no foul there. Mostly a few diamonds amongst the rough thing. Thank you for contributing and I do think it was a good one.
But, I do disagree on one minor semantic detail. Lack of belief is different than active disbelief which is the distinguishing characteristic of atheism *a answer of no as to the answer of the underlying point of contention*.

reply to post by KyoZero


Exactly. I wonder if perhaps a persons belief in these entities makes them "real" in a very real sense except it's.... well... subjective... But I do admit I come to that conclusion with a unwillingness to self righteously and actively ignoring the possibility I could wrong and declare anyone "delusional" or whatever.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Good point. I should have said atheism does not imply a lack of belief, but rather implies a disbelief. An atheist believes deities do NOT exist... that is more accurate, you're right about that. Though technically the distinction that atheism is a position on belief (or disbelief), while agnosticism is a position on knowledge, remains.

reply to post by KyoZero


Cheers to that.

Religion is an unprovable philosophy, whether or not we care to admit it. There's nothing wrong with creating our own philosophy about the universe's unknowns. But when we start accusing other people of not seeing our "truth," while at the same time we are unable to explain exactly why it is the "truth," that's when one of humanity's sad shortfallings comes to the fore.

reply to post by Magnus47


True. But I also tend to believe that all "knowledge" is is reinforced belief. After all the "knowledge" of today is the laughing stock of tomorrow. Pretty sure that is a quote from someone more important than myself.

Ummm, I prefer Gnosticism, to ignorance. If you desire non-knowledge to discernment then that would be a self inflicted form of denial that I couldn't participate in. I could also state that there is also no proof that a higher evolutionary "God like" bieng doesn't
exist. If one makes a claim for agnosticism one only admits to an incomplete examination of the given subject. Perhaps if one explored without prejudice and preconception, enlightenment might ensue.
I think you make the mistake of pursuit through learning. If you study enlightenment pursuits you will find that Gnosis is achieved only when one empties oneself of of the entirety of prior learning. Enlightenment can never be reasoned, you will not achieve understanding through education. Certainly understanding the process is a form of education, but only in the context of preperation. What I mean to say is that you must learn to become a true tabula rasa a blank slate. Set aside all that you think you know, set aside thinking and knowing, therein lies Gnosis, Therin lies enlightenment.