21 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYounghttp://m-w.com/dictionary/agnostic
If you understand that you might be wrong, then you don't know for certain.
[b]A -: without
- gnostic: knowledge[/b]
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
21 Dec 07
Originally posted by SwissGambitAnd every one of those people belongs to that group. If you're committed to believing something, you're not considering the possibility that it's not true.
http://m-w.com/dictionary/agnostic
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
21 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI think Starrman’s right: you’re being sloppy. As bbarr and LemonJello have also pointed out many times, epistemological certainty is not necessary to hold a belief, nor even to conclude that such belief is sufficiently justified to say “I know.”
And every one of those people belongs to that group. If you're committed to believing something, you're not considering the possibility that it's not true.
I think that I have sufficient justification to not believe in a theistic god-being.
If you're committed to believing something, you're not considering the possibility that it's not true.
This sounds more like dogmatism to me. I’m not sure that I like that word “committed” in the dictionary definition, since I’m not sure what it means here. Nevertheless, to be willing to examine new evidence, or an argument that one has not thought of, is not tantamount to agnosticism. Otherwise, everyone who is not an agnostic has to take a position of: “My mind’s made up, don’t confuse me with facts.”
You seem to be saying that it’s either agnosticism or dogmatic close-mindedness.
Two examples:
(1) I feel quite justified in saying that I know my wife loves me. I cannot imagine, knowing her as I do, what evidence could possibly surface to convince me otherwise. But if the evidence were sufficient to overturn my belief, and justify the counter-belief, then there it would be.
(2) I feel quite justified in saying that I believe there is no supernatural god-being. I don’t know what evidence could possibly surface to convince me otherwise; I haven’t seen it yet. But if the evidence were sufficient to overturn my belief, and justify the counter-belief, then there it would be.
I am not agnostic about whether or not my wife loves me; I am not agnostic about whether or not there is a god-being.
21 Dec 07
Originally posted by StarrmanIf you insist the creation is a naturally occuring event you are welcomed to your belief. As for me, I have no evidence for this.
But that's just it, abiogenesis, demonstrable under lab conditions or not, [b]does not violate the laws of nature! God does. There's no reality whatsoever in replacing natural processes with a supernatural entity. How do the origins of chemical based, naturally occurring life fit the bill in regards to supernatural magic?[/b]
21 Dec 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou sure love to make ridiculous generalities. Yes, SOME Christians are "obnoxiously and aggressively political", just as SOME agnostics are and SOME atheists are, too. Your hatred for Christianity seems to make you say some really silly things.
Christians are obnoxiously and aggressively political...
21 Dec 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNonsense, in my epistemic framework all belief holding is relative to the probability of certainty for any given event. Consequently unless we are talking about logical or analytic truths (the complexities of their (un)erring truth notwithstanding) all beliefs are subject to the possibility of being in error. This is not the same as making a positive claim to the fact that we cannot know god, or that we have not the evidence to know him.
If you understand that you might be wrong, then you don't know for certain.
[b]A -: without
- gnostic: knowledge[/b]
21 Dec 07
Originally posted by gaychessplayerThank you.
You sure love to make ridiculous generalities. Yes, SOME Christians are "obnoxiously and aggressively political", just as SOME agnostics are and SOME atheists are, too. Your hatred for Christianity seems to make you say some really silly things.
21 Dec 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI disagree, for two reasons.
And every one of those people belongs to that group. If you're committed to believing something, you're not considering the possibility that it's not true.
1) A good debater anticipates the arguments his opposition will make, and prepares for them. In other words, I can concede the possibility that my belief may not be true, but I will also try to give good reasons why I think that possibility is unlikely.
2) In a serious discussion, even if I just say, "I think that it is likely that God does not exist", I am committed to defend that statement. If I don't, people will get the idea that my beliefs are just arbitrary, or decided on a whim, and [rightly] not take them very seriously.
22 Dec 07
2 edits
Originally posted by gaychessplayerPlease, tell me about the atheist equivalent to the Christian Coalition. How come I don't hear about this Athiest Alliance in the news? What laws do we pass? Do we have any laws with blatantly atheist names equivalent to the Judeo-Christian originated law against Sodomy that was recently declared unconstitutional?
You sure love to make ridiculous generalities. Yes, SOME Christians are "obnoxiously and aggressively political", just as SOME agnostics are and SOME atheists are, too. Your hatred for Christianity seems to make you say some really silly things.
22 Dec 07
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI would probably classify myself as an atheist, since I do not believe in God (mind you, I don't believe in agnostics either), although I have no problem being described as an agnostic, although perhaps the term "implicit agnostic" might be more descriptive.
[b]Admitted Agnostics
scottishinnz
KellyJay
Starrman
visitesd
AThousandYoung
I count four atheists and one theist.[/b]
It's a shame that none of the theists have offered any information about what might constitute evidence or proof of God's non-existence. Why are they so unwilling to test this hypothesis?