Political Crossfire Forums

thefranzkafkafront · Posted: Mon May 22, 2006 2:42 pm Post subject:

Quote: Ok, so it's not a very funny joke, but it illustrates my point nicely, I think. My feeling is, you can't sort of half believe something. You either do or you don't. There is no middle ground here, as I can see.

Buzz, but nice try for imposing a false dicotomy.

Its very easy to take an agnostic stance, its a simply a refusal to take a illogical leap of faith in either direction. In this essentially it is the most logical stance to take.

Most of the logical positivsts of the 20th centuray (the most recent logical/meta-physical movement) from Ayer to Moore, to Wittengenstien were agnositcs.

You've also develed far too much into the entomology of agnostic, while it has an influence on its meaning, to simply delve into it and ignore all philosophy surrounding it is quite frankly foolish.

In not so many words, your wrong quite simply.

feederband · Joined: 26 Jan 2006 Posts: 4158 Location: Florida

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Quote: Ok, so it's not a very funny joke, but it illustrates my point nicely, I think. My feeling is, you can't sort of half believe something. You either do or you don't. There is no middle ground here, as I can see.

Buzz, but nice try for imposing a false dicotomy.

Its very easy to take an agnostic stance, its a simply a refusal to take a illogical leap of faith in either direction. In this essentially it is the most logical stance to take.

Most of the logical positivsts of the 20th centuray (the most recent logical/meta-physical movement) from Ayer to Moore, to Wittengenstien were agnositcs.

You've also develed far too much into the entomology of agnostic, while it has an influence on its meaning, to simply delve into it and ignore all philosophy surrounding it is quite frankly foolish.

In not so many words, your wrong quite simply.

Na...I still say its a cop out...A free ride on what ever becomes the real truth..Your either in or out not next door playing your own game...

thefranzkafkafront · Posted: Mon May 22, 2006 2:50 pm Post subject:

feederband wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Quote: Ok, so it's not a very funny joke, but it illustrates my point nicely, I think. My feeling is, you can't sort of half believe something. You either do or you don't. There is no middle ground here, as I can see.

Buzz, but nice try for imposing a false dicotomy.

Its very easy to take an agnostic stance, its a simply a refusal to take a illogical leap of faith in either direction. In this essentially it is the most logical stance to take.

Most of the logical positivsts of the 20th centuray (the most recent logical/meta-physical movement) from Ayer to Moore, to Wittengenstien were agnositcs.

You've also develed far too much into the entomology of agnostic, while it has an influence on its meaning, to simply delve into it and ignore all philosophy surrounding it is quite frankly foolish.

In not so many words, your wrong quite simply.

Na...I still say its a cop out...A free ride on what ever becomes the real truth..Your either in or out not next door playing your own game...

Its not a cop out, again your imposing a false dictomy, that you have to take a Kierkegaardian leap of faith. Its simply illogical bulls**t from the word go.

In order to claim somthing as knowledge you need to.

Belive it.
Be able to justify it.
And be able to verify it as true.

With atheism or theism or diesm or polytheism, you can do the first, the second, but never the third.

The agonistic is the man who deals in knowledge and nothing more, and untill i can do the third statment and verify it as true i shall suspend judgement.

Its a not a cop out at all, if anything its quite the oposite, the agonistic refuses to accsept imporant disisions based on limited or a total lack there of, of evidence.

But please argue the case for the leap of faith, please im dying to hear.

feederband · Joined: 26 Jan 2006 Posts: 4158 Location: Florida

thefranzkafkafront wrote: feederband wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Quote: Ok, so it's not a very funny joke, but it illustrates my point nicely, I think. My feeling is, you can't sort of half believe something. You either do or you don't. There is no middle ground here, as I can see.

Buzz, but nice try for imposing a false dicotomy.

Its very easy to take an agnostic stance, its a simply a refusal to take a illogical leap of faith in either direction. In this essentially it is the most logical stance to take.

Most of the logical positivsts of the 20th centuray (the most recent logical/meta-physical movement) from Ayer to Moore, to Wittengenstien were agnositcs.

You've also develed far too much into the entomology of agnostic, while it has an influence on its meaning, to simply delve into it and ignore all philosophy surrounding it is quite frankly foolish.

In not so many words, your wrong quite simply.

Na...I still say its a cop out...A free ride on what ever becomes the real truth..Your either in or out not next door playing your own game...

Its not a cop out, again your imposing a false dictomy, that you have to take a Kierkegaardian leap of faith. Its simply illogical bulls**t from the word go.

In order to claim somthing as knowledge you need to.

Belive it.
Be able to justify it.
And be able to verify it as true.

With atheism or theism or diesm or polytheism, you can do the first, the second, but never the third.

The agonistic is the man who deals in knowledge and nothing more, and untill i can do the third statment and verify it as true i shall suspend judgement.

Its a not a cop out at all, if anything its quite the oposite, the agonistic refuses to accsept imporant disisions based on limited or a total lack there of, of evidence.

But please argue the case for the leap of faith, please im dying to hear.

I use to say I was agnostic. But this was only to keep my true self in the closet..Alot of agnostic are this way...The leap to Atheist was actually real simple...It only takes the facts that are out there and common sense...There are no gods ..I dont have to prove it..You cant prove something that isn't there, that simple..

Snarf · Joined: 10 Jan 2005 Posts: 5459

feederband wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: feederband wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Quote: Ok, so it's not a very funny joke, but it illustrates my point nicely, I think. My feeling is, you can't sort of half believe something. You either do or you don't. There is no middle ground here, as I can see.

Buzz, but nice try for imposing a false dicotomy.

Its very easy to take an agnostic stance, its a simply a refusal to take a illogical leap of faith in either direction. In this essentially it is the most logical stance to take.

Most of the logical positivsts of the 20th centuray (the most recent logical/meta-physical movement) from Ayer to Moore, to Wittengenstien were agnositcs.

You've also develed far too much into the entomology of agnostic, while it has an influence on its meaning, to simply delve into it and ignore all philosophy surrounding it is quite frankly foolish.

In not so many words, your wrong quite simply.

Na...I still say its a cop out...A free ride on what ever becomes the real truth..Your either in or out not next door playing your own game...

Its not a cop out, again your imposing a false dictomy, that you have to take a Kierkegaardian leap of faith. Its simply illogical bulls**t from the word go.

In order to claim somthing as knowledge you need to.

Belive it.
Be able to justify it.
And be able to verify it as true.

With atheism or theism or diesm or polytheism, you can do the first, the second, but never the third.

The agonistic is the man who deals in knowledge and nothing more, and untill i can do the third statment and verify it as true i shall suspend judgement.

Its a not a cop out at all, if anything its quite the oposite, the agonistic refuses to accsept imporant disisions based on limited or a total lack there of, of evidence.

But please argue the case for the leap of faith, please im dying to hear.

I use to say I was agnostic. But this was only to keep my true self in the closet..Alot of agnostic are this way...The leap to Atheist was actually real simple...It only takes the facts that are out there and common sense...There are no gods ..I dont have to prove it..You cant prove something that isn't there, that simple..
The facts say that what is unknown cannot be excluded from the realm of the possible. You, like all Atheists and Theists, have taken a position that cannot be proved and is therefore an act of faith. It is your right to make statements of faith but as far as statements of facts go, God and gods are unknown and unproven, and those things should be treated as 'possible' even if unlikely. To say God doesn’t exist is invalid as no one has proof either way...

thefranzkafkafront · Posted: Tue May 23, 2006 1:44 pm Post subject:

feederband wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: feederband wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Quote: Ok, so it's not a very funny joke, but it illustrates my point nicely, I think. My feeling is, you can't sort of half believe something. You either do or you don't. There is no middle ground here, as I can see.

Buzz, but nice try for imposing a false dicotomy.

Its very easy to take an agnostic stance, its a simply a refusal to take a illogical leap of faith in either direction. In this essentially it is the most logical stance to take.

Most of the logical positivsts of the 20th centuray (the most recent logical/meta-physical movement) from Ayer to Moore, to Wittengenstien were agnositcs.

You've also develed far too much into the entomology of agnostic, while it has an influence on its meaning, to simply delve into it and ignore all philosophy surrounding it is quite frankly foolish.

In not so many words, your wrong quite simply.

Na...I still say its a cop out...A free ride on what ever becomes the real truth..Your either in or out not next door playing your own game...

Its not a cop out, again your imposing a false dictomy, that you have to take a Kierkegaardian leap of faith. Its simply illogical bulls**t from the word go.

In order to claim somthing as knowledge you need to.

Belive it.
Be able to justify it.
And be able to verify it as true.

With atheism or theism or diesm or polytheism, you can do the first, the second, but never the third.

The agonistic is the man who deals in knowledge and nothing more, and untill i can do the third statment and verify it as true i shall suspend judgement.

Its a not a cop out at all, if anything its quite the oposite, the agonistic refuses to accsept imporant disisions based on limited or a total lack there of, of evidence.

But please argue the case for the leap of faith, please im dying to hear.

I use to say I was agnostic. But this was only to keep my true self in the closet..Alot of agnostic are this way...
You'd dint read my post did you.

Quote:
The leap to Atheist was actually real simple...It only takes the facts that are out there and common sense...There are no gods ..I dont have to prove it..You cant prove something that isn't there, that simple..
Prehaps its a bit innane trying to discuss philosophy with a naive realist, so let me put it again simply.

Either atheism or theism requires irrational belief.

Oh and you might want to note, its that something isunt there is what you logically cannot prove.

snarf wrote: The facts say that what is unknown cannot be excluded from the realm of the possible. You, like all Atheists and Theists, have taken a position that cannot be proved and is therefore an act of faith. It is your right to make statements of faith but as far as statements of facts go, God and gods are unknown and unproven, and those things should be treated as 'possible' even if unlikely. To say God doesn’t exist is invalid as no one has proof either way...

Exaclty.

GenderQueer · Joined: 07 Apr 2006 Posts: 60

You can be agnostic, its basically saying i dont know. Not everyone knows, so its simple to say that i dont know. I would rather say that i dont know then take to one side or another. I think it actually is much better to say i dont know, instead of making an uniformed decision.

feederband · Joined: 26 Jan 2006 Posts: 4158 Location: Florida

Do you believe in god yes or no...It's really that simple...To say you don't know is a joke IMO...

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

feederband wrote: Do you believe in god yes or no...It's really that simple...To say you don't know is a joke IMO...

No, it's not. I know agnostics who truly don't know.

Æ · Joined: 17 Jun 2005 Posts: 5506 Location: Taxatraz

feederband wrote: Do you believe in god yes or no...It's really that simple...To say you don't know is a joke IMO...
No, it's not. You don't know that God doesn't exist nor do I know that he does. I believe he exists, but you don't. Agnostics are not fence sitters, but people who see merits to both sides of the argument and objectively conclude that there is insufficient evidence to arrive at a conclusion one way or the other. In other words, they're not close minded.

GenderQueer · Joined: 07 Apr 2006 Posts: 60

feederband wrote: Do you believe in god yes or no...It's really that simple...To say you don't know is a joke IMO...

to say u believe in god or dont believe in god without thinking it through is a joke, not thinking critically about both sides and coming to the conclusion that you cant make a conclusion without more information. Ignorance is not an excuse to take one side over another.

frunabulax · Joined: 23 Dec 2005 Posts: 132

I have come to realize the issue is not how you define agnostic, but how you define atheist. If atheist is simply lack of belief in god, then agnostics are pretty much atheists, since not knowing that god exists implies not believing that he/she exists. OTOH, babies don't believe in god, are they atheists too? Obviously not. However I do believe saying you're agnostic is just about as informative as saying you believe in god. Given all the definitions people may have for god, it simply isn't saying much. Same goes for agnostics. You have agnostics who while not commited to a belief in any particular god, still believe in all sorts of other supernatural hocus pocus, while you have other types of agnostics who are basically indistinguishable from weak atheists in terms of beliefs. The point is, if you're trying to be evasive or polite or subtle, might as well call yourself agnostic, however, if you're trying to be clear, I believe it's best to choose a different word.

Snarf · Joined: 10 Jan 2005 Posts: 5459

frunabulax wrote: I have come to realize the issue is not how you define agnostic, but how you define atheist. If atheist is simply lack of belief in god, then agnostics are pretty much atheists, since not knowing that god exists implies not believing that he/she exists. OTOH, babies don't believe in god, are they atheists too? Obviously not. However I do believe saying you're agnostic is just about as informative as saying you believe in god. Given all the definitions people may have for god, it simply isn't saying much. Same goes for agnostics. You have agnostics who while not commited to a belief in any particular god, still believe in all sorts of other supernatural hocus pocus, while you have other types of agnostics who are basically indistinguishable from weak atheists in terms of beliefs. The point is, if you're trying to be evasive or polite or subtle, might as well call yourself agnostic, however, if you're trying to be clear, I believe it's best to choose a different word.
You do not understand what agnostic means it seems. Theists say that God exists. Atheists deny that God exists. Agnostics say, "Does God exist? - That's a good question that we don’t have a definitive answer to yet." There's nothing tepid or evasive about it. It's called keeping an open mind and it does not imply the denial of anything metaphysical, including God or gods, both of which are no more unlikely to exist than we are ourselves.

We once thought that time was a constant that only moved in one direction. That obvious conclusion was as wrong as thinking that the sun revolved around the earth. It’s a complicated universe we live in. Agnostics acknowledge the simple fact that we still have more questions than answers, and that saying what is and isn’t true before the facts are in leads to nothing good in the end. That is why God is a open question and must be treated as such…

thefranzkafkafront · Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 3:47 am Post subject:

feederband wrote: Do you believe in god yes or no...It's really that simple...To say you don't know is a joke IMO...

don't ever study epistolomgy you woulnt be very good at it.

My anwser is there up above.

You've imposed a false dictotomy of belief.

There is no such forced subscription.

thefranzkafkafront · Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 3:50 am Post subject:

frunabulax wrote: I have come to realize the issue is not how you define agnostic, but how you define atheist. If atheist is simply lack of belief in god, then agnostics are pretty much atheists, since not knowing that god exists implies not believing that he/she exists.OTOH, babies don't believe in god, are they atheists too? Obviously not. However I do believe saying you're agnostic is just about as informative as saying you believe in god. Given all the definitions people may have for god, it simply isn't saying much. Same goes for agnostics. You have agnostics who while not commited to a belief in any particular god, still believe in all sorts of other supernatural hocus pocus, while you have other types of agnostics who are basically indistinguishable from weak atheists in terms of beliefs.The point is, if you're trying to be evasive or polite or subtle, might as well call yourself agnostic, however, if you're trying to be clear, I believe it's best to choose a different word.

Wrong. Its neither for the 3rd f***ing time, its not a challenging concept.

You've imposed a false dicotomy (where you've got to choose between two polar choices) either beliving in god or not, its not that simple.

Wittegenstien wrote: What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.

THEXRATED · Joined: 13 Jul 2004 Posts: 2866 Location: Tuonelan Virrat

Quote: Agnostics say, "Does God exist?

I thought it is more along the lines of "does a god(s) exist?"

Your example applies to a specific god.

My own point of view is that I rather not believe in unproven things. I might entertain the idea for a moment, but would most definetly not change my life or habits based purely on belief. If someone makes an extraordinary claim, I require equally extraordinary proof for that claim. Mass hysteria is not one of those proofs unfortunately.

None of claims of god(s) or religions I have studied have provided any proof for their supernatural claims. In fact, across all religions that base their dogma around supernatural beings have one thing common - lack of evidence.

Random Evil Guy · Joined: 20 Dec 2005 Posts: 1805

Shady wrote: Agnostics in my opinion generally refer to those who believe in a higher power but do not follow a particular denomination. And there is a lot of those.

nah, that's more like deism imo. agnostics doesn't know and generally thinks there is no way we'll ever know, so the whole question is meaningless.